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. The facts of recognition reveal that the new registration of the instant automobile was completed under the Plaintiff’s name on July 31, 2002; the Plaintiff issued the documents necessary for the ownership transfer registration of the instant automobile to the name defective thereafter; the Defendant, on June 18, 2013, may recognize the fact that Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and the automobile insurance contract was concluded with the Plaintiff, or there is no dispute between the parties, or based on the records in Gap’s certificate, the fact that it was made with the Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the fact that the Defendant purchased the instant automobile from C on June 18, 2003 to KRW 4,200,000 and used the instant automobile until June 18, 2005.

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the claim for confirmation is lawful

A. The plaintiff purchased and used the automobile of this case in the name of the plaintiff on June 18, 2003, and the seizure registered in the register of automobile of this case is related to automobile tax, administrative fine, etc. related to the operation of the automobile of this case. Thus, it is sought to confirm that the defendant is liable for payment of automobile tax, etc. related to the above seizure. Thus, it is examined ex officio as to the legitimacy

B. The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety and risk when the plaintiff's legal status is in danger and risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the plaintiff is judged as a confirmation against the defendant for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency imposed by the public charges or the fine for negligence.