1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. In the lawsuit of this case, the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation, ex officio, requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and in the lawsuit of confirmation, there is dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate unstable risks when the plaintiff’s right or legal status is unstable (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). However, even if the judgment of confirmation is rendered as asserted by the plaintiff, such judgment does not directly affect the administrative agency, etc., and the obligation to pay automobile tax and fine imposed on the plaintiff as a matter of course does not transfer it to the defendant, and there is a separate procedure of objection as to the imposition of automobile tax and fine for negligence, etc., the part of the lawsuit of this case in question cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff’s legal status’s anxiety or risk.

2. Judgment on the claim to accept the transfer registration procedure

A. On June 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff requested the sale of the instant automobile via the Nonparty, and the Defendant purchased the instant automobile through the Nonparty on June 7, 2012.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant motor vehicle from the plaintiff.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant concluded an automobile insurance contract with himself/herself as the insured for the instant automobile and with the insurance period from August 17, 2012 to February 23, 2013.

However, the above evidence and the whole purport of the pleading can be recognized.