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

2. The defendant shall set forth in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 17, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed five million won from the Defendant, a credit service provider, to the Defendant, and delivered to the Defendant all documents necessary for the registration of the automobile indicated in the separate sheet as collateral (hereinafter “instant automobile”) and the transfer of ownership.

B. On February 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would dispose of the instant vehicle, as it did not receive interest on the loan from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the part of the claim for confirmation

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is liable for the payment of various taxes and fines imposed after the instant automobile was transferred to the Defendant.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation ex officio, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit for confirmation. Accordingly, the judgment of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means in removing the Plaintiff’s legal status unstable and dangerous, and there is a separate objection procedure against the competent administrative agency regarding the disposition imposing taxes, public charges, and fines for negligence. In addition, even if the court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation, the obligation to pay taxes, public charges, and fines for negligence imposed by the judgment cannot be transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant or the Plaintiff’s liability for payment cannot be extinguished. Thus, it is difficult to view the part of the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case as the valid and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal anxiety and danger.

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Even if there is a benefit of confirmation, the Plaintiff knew from the beginning that the Defendant would not occupy and use the instant vehicle to a third party.