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. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 10, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant an automobile listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant automobile”) in KRW 2,00,000,000, and the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant automobile.

B. In addition, even though at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant had to resolve the amount equivalent to KRW 1,500,000, including violation of parking regulations that occurred up to that time, fines for negligence due to failure of inspection, and insurance premiums, etc. by May 31, 2013, it is not yet settled yet, and as a result, it became a seizure registration of the instant automobile due to the Defendant’s failure to pay fines for violation of parking and stopping regulations and environmental improvement charges concerning scrapped C vehicles.

Therefore, it is necessary to confirm that the defendant is liable to pay the fine for negligence incurred before the vehicle transfer, the fine for negligence and the fine for negligence on the above C vehicle.

2. We examine ex officio the part of the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit in this case, and in the lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is required as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the defendant is the most effective means to receive a judgment against the defendant in the lawsuit for confirmation, which is in danger and in danger of being present in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and removing its apprehension and danger. The effect of the judgment is effective only to the parties concerned, and it does not impose taxes and public charges on the plaintiff.

In light of the fact that the pertinent authority does not have any effect on the pertinent authority, and that the Plaintiff is required to take a separate procedure of objection or file a separate lawsuit against the pertinent authority that imposed the said tax and public charges, the Plaintiff is in danger of being in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.