A. On January 6, 2014, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) registered the Plaintiff with the ownership transfer registration in the name of the Plaintiff; and (b) agreed to accept the transfer registration procedure in the name of the Defendant within a week; and (c) failed to comply with the agreement by the administrative agency, etc.; and (d) imposed taxes and public charges on the Plaintiff on the instant motor vehicle after January 6, 2014.

Even if the Plaintiff won the case against the Defendant in the claim for the acquisition of the ownership transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile, the Defendant cannot be allowed to take over the ownership transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile unless the taxes, public charges, etc. attached to the instant automobile are paid. As such, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Defendant is liable to pay the taxes, public charges, etc. imposed on the instant automobile so that the Defendant may take over the ownership transfer registration procedure without paying the taxes,

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of ex officio as to the existence of interest in confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties in relation to the legal relationship subject to confirmation. Accordingly, it is recognized that the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status when the risk of apprehensions. Even though the Plaintiff may bring a lawsuit for performance, permitting the claim for confirmation of the existence of the right to claim performance itself is not effective to eliminate apprehensions.

However, in this case, even if the Plaintiff received a confirmation judgment against the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the obligation to pay taxes and public charges imposed on the Plaintiff by such judgment is not transferred from the Defendant to the Defendant.