2. The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was liable to pay administrative fines, automobile taxes, etc., imposed on the Plaintiff after the date of the acquisition agreement in relation to the vehicle indicated in the separate sheet, because the Defendant used the vehicle listed in the separate sheet that was registered under the Plaintiff’s name and did not pay it.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is one of the most effective and appropriate means when there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous.

However, even in this case, even if the Plaintiff’s judgment was rendered on the ground as above, the obligation to pay the administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff by the said judgment is not transferred to the Defendant from the original source (the foregoing judgment alone does not extinguish the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. against the administrative agency that imposed the tax authority or the administrative fine). The said judgment of confirmation cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to remove

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay fines, automobile tax, etc. among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation

2. Determination on the claim for taking over the procedure for the registration of automobile ownership transfer

A. The defendant, on October 31, 2002, entered into an acquisition agreement with the plaintiff on the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet, and the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure from the plaintiff on the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet for the reason of the acquisition agreement on the date of the above agreement.