1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has the obligation to pay various charges, such as taxes and public charges and administrative fines, imposed on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet, since he/she had been continuously operated in the name of the plaintiff since he/she transferred the registration of the motor vehicle in the name of the plaintiff on March 5, 2008.

Ex officio, a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff as a confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehensions and risks when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if a confirmation is rendered on the grounds as alleged by the plaintiff in this case, the res judicata effect only arises between the plaintiff and the defendant, and does not extend to the State or local governments, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency imposing public charges or a fine for negligence, and the obligation of the plaintiff to pay public charges, etc. registered as the owner in

Furthermore, the Plaintiff may file a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment or damages with the Defendant after paying public charges or administrative fines imposed on the relevant motor vehicle as indicated in the separate sheet. Therefore, it is difficult to view that obtaining a judgment of confirmation, such as the purport of the claim, is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the uncertainty and risk of legal relations

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation, and it is so decided as per Disposition.