1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall enter the attached list from the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant is in a de facto marital relationship at the end of 2010 or around the beginning of 2011.

B. On September 28, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the instant automobile.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleading, and determination as to whether the part of claim for confirmation of ownership is legitimate among the lawsuit in this case

A. On October 28, 2010, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the instant motor vehicle ownership was the Defendant since October 28, 2010, on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant motor vehicle under the Plaintiff’s name and the Plaintiff terminated the relevant title trust agreement. As such, the Plaintiff’s ex officio examined the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is disputed between the parties as to the legal relationship subject thereto, and accordingly, it is recognized in cases where receiving a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk of anxiety when the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is unstable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010; 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). The instant case returned to the Health Board and Health Board, and the Plaintiff can obtain confirmation from October 28, 2010 that the Plaintiff is liable for the payment of administrative fines, taxes, etc. imposed on the instant automobile from October 28, 2010 to obtain confirmation that the instant automobile is owned by the Defendant.

However, there is a separate appeal procedure regarding the fact that the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the administrative fines, taxes, etc. imposed on the instant automobile. Therefore, the Plaintiff ought to dispute the legality of the imposition of administrative fines, taxes, etc.

Even if the plaintiff is judged to confirm his claim, the judgment is only effective between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the fine for negligence and taxes.