1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding confirmation that the Defendant is liable for the payment of administrative fines and taxes and public charges.

1. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the suit for the above confirmation.

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there must be the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, when there is apprehension or risk of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010).

However, inasmuch as separate procedures for objection are provided against fines for negligence and taxes and public charges, the Plaintiff should contest the legality of imposition of fines for negligence on the ground of the circumstances alleged above in the appeal procedure. Even if the Plaintiff received a confirmation judgment, the said judgment is effective only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff does not lose its obligation to pay public charges, etc. already imposed on the Plaintiff as it did not extend to the administrative agency imposing fines for negligence. Therefore, the part of the claim in this case among the lawsuits in question is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the existing

C. Therefore, the part seeking confirmation that the Defendant is liable to pay fines and taxes among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

3. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);