자동차소유권이전등록절차인수등
1. The part of the instant lawsuit, the exchange of which has been changed in the trial, shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiff's remainder.
1. Whether the part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit in this case is legitimate or not, the Plaintiff did not register the transfer of ownership after the Defendant acquired a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”), and imposed an administrative fine and automobile tax on the Plaintiff, who is the registered titleholder, and thus, sought confirmation that the obligation for payment
We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and 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 due to which, if there is apprehension or risk of the plaintiff's rights or legal status, it is the most effective and appropriate means to remove such apprehension or risk
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 said judgment is only effective between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it does not affect the administrative agency imposing fines for negligence, etc. Therefore, the part of the instant claim for confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status
Therefore, the part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
2. Determination on the part of the claim for the transfer registration procedure
A. On October 20, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around October 20, 2006, the Plaintiff: (b) requested trading of a motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”); and (c) transferred the instant motor vehicle along with documents necessary for the transfer of the motor vehicle; and (d) around October 20, 2006, the Defendant purchased the instant motor vehicle and transferred its registration name.
Therefore, the defendant.