1. Of the instant lawsuit, the instant lawsuit was imposed in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the operation of automobiles indicated in the separate sheet from July 31, 2000.

1. As to the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay automobile tax, etc. among the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that from July 31, 2000, the obligation to pay the fine for negligence, automobile tax, etc. imposed in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the operation of the instant vehicle from July 31, 2000 on the Defendant (hereinafter “instant automobile”) is the Defendant. We examine whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994). In light of the above legal principles, even if the plaintiff was rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, res judicata effect of the judgment is limited between the plaintiff and the defendant, and since it does not affect the State or local government, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency that imposed automobile tax, etc. by the judgment, and therefore, the confirmation judgment against the defendant cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status apprehension and danger.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay administrative fines, automobile tax, etc. in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit

2. On July 31, 200, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant automobile to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant promised to register the ownership transfer of the instant automobile within several days; (c) asserted that it was not performed; and (d) accordingly, the Defendant only owned the instant automobile for the purpose of securing the Plaintiff’s obligation, and purchased it from the Plaintiff.