2. The defendant shall set forth in the attached list from the plaintiff.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. On or after January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that a person who actually used an automobile listed in the separate sheet was the Defendant and liable for payment of administrative fines, automobile taxes, etc. imposed on the said automobile on the ground that he/she is the Defendant. However, the lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). As to the imposition of automobile taxes, automobile taxes, and administrative fines, etc., are provided separate appeals procedures against the competent administrative agency. Even if the Plaintiff received a confirmation judgment against the Defendant as sought by the Plaintiff, even if the said judgment was transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, or the Plaintiff could not oppose the competent administrative agency based on the said confirmation judgment, and thus, the said confirmation judgment cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s legal status and risks.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.