2. The plaintiff.

A. Since the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration in its name with respect to the instant motor vehicle on March 11, 2003, the Plaintiff is registered as the owner of the instant motor vehicle until now.

B. The instant motor vehicle is subject to seizure registration due to various administrative fines, such as speed violations, and the unpaid automobile tax.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay fines for negligence, automobile tax, etc., the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Defendant was liable to pay fines for negligence, automobile tax, etc. to the Plaintiff, who is a registered titleholder, because the Defendant did not register ownership transfer after acquiring the instant automobile

As to the legitimacy of this part of a lawsuit ex officio, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit for confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status by the confirmation judgment in removing the anxiety and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). In relation to the disposition of imposition of various fines for negligence, automobile tax, etc., there are separate procedures for objection against the competent administrative agency. Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant for the same reason as alleged by the plaintiff, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend only between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency imposing public charges or fines for negligence, and it cannot be asserted that the plaintiff's legal status and risk of removal of the plaintiff's legal status, etc. registered as the owner of the automobile register, etc.