자동차소유권이전등록
1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. Of the vehicles listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B’s share shall be 3/13.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 9, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the new registration of ownership of the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).
B. On November 22, 2005, H purchased the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff and started to operate the instant vehicle upon delivery.
C. On February 23, 2014, H succeeded to the obligations of Defendant B (Inheritance Shares 3/13), Defendant C, E, D, F, and G (Inheritance Shares 2/13) who is his/her spouse, Defendant C, E, D, F, and G, a child.
[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-5, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. We examine whether this part of the instant lawsuit, ex officio, is lawful.
The Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the obligation to pay administrative fines, automobile taxes, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff after November 22, 2005 on the instant automobile is against the Defendants.
In a lawsuit for confirmation of rights, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject thereto, and thereby, if there is unstable danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such unstable risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). In the instant case, even if the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment of confirmation against the Defendants as alleged by the Plaintiff, the obligation to pay the administrative fine and automobile tax imposed on the Plaintiff by the judgment is not transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendants (i.e., the said judgment on internal monetary burden between the Plaintiff and the Defendants does not terminate the obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff’s automobile tax, automobile tax, etc. against the tax authority or the tax authority, or affect the administrative authority, etc.). The said judgment