A. The Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Defendant, around September 6, 2008, acquired the instant automobile and subscribed to mandatory insurance on December 11, 2008, is liable for the administrative fine and automobile tax imposed in relation to the operation of the instant automobile thereafter.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the suit for the above confirmation.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, when there is apprehension or risk of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010).

However, inasmuch as separate procedures for objection against fines for negligence or automobile tax are provided, the Plaintiff ought to contest the legality of imposition, including fines for negligence, on the ground of the circumstances alleged above in the appeal procedure. Even if the Plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment, the judgment is only effective between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the obligation to pay public charges, etc. already imposed on the Plaintiff is not extinguished since it did not extend to the administrative agency imposing fines for negligence. As such, the part of the claim in this case in question is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff

Therefore, the part seeking confirmation that the Defendant is liable to pay administrative fines, automobile taxes, etc. in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

Articles 208 (Judgment without Oral Proceedings)