A. The plaintiff seeks to confirm that the defendant is liable for motor vehicle tax and various administrative fines incurred after July 21, 2007 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the attached list. Thus, we examine whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate ex officio.

B. 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 therefore, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it does not affect the state or local government. Thus, it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency imposing an administrative fine and automobile tax, and therefore, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status unstable risk.

C. If so, the part seeking confirmation that the Defendant is liable for automobile tax and various administrative fines incurred after July 21, 2007 with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Judgment on the claim to accept the transfer registration procedure

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(Provided, in the description of the cause of the claim, the “registered bonds company” was corrected by the Plaintiff as “Defendant B” upon application for the correction of a party’s indication on September 13, 2016.

Articles 208(3)1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act of a judgment without a pleading