2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff did not pay the fine for negligence, automobile tax, etc. while operating the instant automobile, which was registered by the Defendant in the name of the Plaintiff on March 31, 2004, while the Plaintiff acquired by transfer the instant automobile and operated it on March 31, 2004. Accordingly, it is sought to confirm that the Defendant has the obligation to pay the fine for negligence, automobile tax, etc. imposed after March 31,

On the other hand, in the lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's risk when there is a dispute between the parties about the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and due to that, it is recognized that the plaintiff's legal status is the most effective and appropriate means.

However, even if a judgment is rendered on confirmation of the same contents as the plaintiff sought, the judgment does not become effective against an administrative agency that imposed an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc., and thus, even if it is based on such judgment, the plaintiff's liability to pay the administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. already or to be imposed in the name of the plaintiff is extinguished

(However, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment or damages with the Defendant after paying the fine for negligence and automobile tax imposed on the instant automobile. Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The plaintiff, on March 31, 2004, transferred the automobile of this case to the defendant on March 31, 2004, claiming that the defendant has the obligation to take over the transfer registration procedure of this case on the ground of the above transfer date.

It is to be done to the place of business for the registration of safe-to-door vehicles of this Court.