2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, before the divorce, promised to implement the procedure for transfer registration of ownership under the Plaintiff’s name at the time of the divorce, the Defendant, a spouse of the Plaintiff, to operate the instant vehicle without transferring its name, and accordingly, requested the Defendant to implement the procedure for acquisition of each of the above attachment registration, on the ground that each of the attachment registration was completed, such as penalty, automobile tax, acquisition tax, and fines for negligence as indicated in the separate sheet, without transferring its name.

Judgment

This attachment registration is based on the disposition on default by an administrative agency. If the plaintiff, who is the person liable to pay the fine for negligence, etc., has improper points in the disposition on default, he can only contest the validity of the disposition on default against the administrative agency, and even if the plaintiff and the defendant have determined the person liable to pay the fine, etc. through a lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant, such judgment does not naturally affect the taxable agency, and thus, the obligation to pay the fine for negligence, etc. imposed by

The plaintiff's obligation to pay is not extinguished.

Therefore, apart from the fact that the defendant is obliged to settle the administrative fine, etc., it is not possible to seek a change in the title of seizure against the defendant, so the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.