A. On April 25, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased and operated the instant vehicle from Nonparty C, a used vehicle dealer, and sold it again to C around 2010.

B. On November 1, 2010, the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle from Nonparty D, a seller of a used motor vehicle, at KRW 5 million, and purchased the instant vehicle from November 5, 2010 to the present date, and thereafter operated the instant motor vehicle.

C. In the lawsuit of Seoul Southern District Court 2013Ma79133, which was filed by the Plaintiff, against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment of the Seoul Southern District Court 2013Ma79133, the Plaintiff was registered as the final owner on July 25, 2014 according to the final judgment.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. On the part of the claim for confirmation of the liability to pay the tax and public charges, the Plaintiff sought confirmation to the Defendant that the instant motor vehicle had the obligation to pay the tax and public charges arising on the instant motor vehicle, since the Plaintiff did not operate the motor vehicle by transferring it in around 2010. Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is examined ex officio

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da4089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it does not affect the State or local governments.