2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

A. The defendant is the owner of the motor vehicle register of X-ray (XIENT) which is currently attached with the number plate of this case as a company operating trucking transport business, etc., and is the owner of the motor vehicle register of X-ray (XIENT: D; hereinafter referred to as the " X-ray") with the number plate of this case.

B. On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff appears to have traded “the right to permit trucking transport business”, which is substantially commended by C, by selling the number plate of the three number plate vehicles, including the instant number plate, to the Plaintiff.

B. A trucking transport business agreement (hereinafter “instant transfer/acquisition agreement”) was entered into with the content of transferring four trucks, including the EXE (hereinafter “instant truck”).

C. After January 18, 2018, C died.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that he/she lawfully received the instant number plate from C, and sought confirmation against the Defendant that the Plaintiff had ownership of the instant number plate at the same time when seeking the implementation of the procedure for change of the name of the owner of the instant number plate.

ex officio, the suit for confirmation is permissible when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is in danger, and the judgment of confirmation is rendered is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54024, Sept. 17, 199). The Plaintiff’s direct action against the Defendant for implementation of the procedure for change of the name of the owner with respect to the number plate of this case can be the direct means to resolve the dispute, and thus, the Plaintiff has the ownership of the number plate of this case separately.