소유권이전등록인수등
1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall enter the attached Form 1 list from the plaintiff.
1. As to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation, the Plaintiff sought confirmation against the Defendant that the Defendant is liable to pay taxes, public charges, taxes, and fines for negligence imposed in the name of the Plaintiff on the motor vehicle listed in the annexed Table 1 No. 1 List, and ex officio, the part of the claim for confirmation among the instant lawsuit is lawful.
The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the judgment in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s apprehension and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994). In light of the above legal principles, there is a separate procedure for objection against the competent administrative agency regarding the disposition of imposition of health expenses and various fines for negligence, etc., and even if the Plaintiff is rendered a judgment against the Defendant for the same reason as the Plaintiff alleged, the res judicata effect of the judgment is limited between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the State or local government is not limited to the State or local government, so it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency imposing the fine for negligence, etc., and the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the fine for negligence, etc., registered as the owner in the register of automobiles is not extinguished.
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 as to the remaining claims
(a) The description of the claim is as shown in attached Form 2;
(However, the Schedule 1 and 2 shall be deemed to be the Schedule 1 and 2. (B).
Articles 208(3)1 and 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts
3. As such, the part of the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remainder is claimed.