However, the phrase “the Defendant’s payment of the above money” is unlawful as it is not an action of confirmation permitted in the form of a lawsuit under the Civil Procedure Act or an action of performance seeking monetary payment.

Even if we look at the purport of seeking confirmation that the above part of claim is liable to pay automobile tax and fine for negligence to the defendant, 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, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as a confirmation judgment in removing such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994). There are separate procedures for objection against the competent administrative agency regarding the disposition of imposition of various fines for negligence, automobile tax, etc., and even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant for reasons, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend only between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency imposing public charges or fine for negligence. Since the plaintiff's public charges, etc. registered as the owner on the automobile register is not extinguished, it is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's legal status and risks.