1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 4, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”).

B. Around January 2008, the Plaintiff offered the instant automobile as security to borrow money from the bond company by a fraudulent C, a company, around January 2008.

C. From June 17, 2009 to October 17, 2011, the Defendant purchased the instant motor vehicle at a second-hand sales site, “8kh,” and then purchased the said motor vehicle under the name of the policyholder with the Plaintiff or the Defendant, and sold the said motor vehicle again to a third party on or around 2011. The Defendant did not complete the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant during the use of the said motor vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, response to order submission of documents to a lot damage insurance company, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the transferee of the instant automobile, who is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the plaintiff, and since January 1, 2008, the obligation to pay automobile tax and fine for negligence, etc. occurred on and after the instant automobile, the defendant is seeking confirmation.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the part of the claim for confirmation of liability for payment of automobile tax, administrative fine, etc. in the instant lawsuit is lawful ex officio in determining the claim for confirmation.

A lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment for confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255, Mar. 15, 2017). There are separate procedures for objection against the competent administrative agency regarding the disposition of health class, automobile tax, and fine for negligence regarding the instant case, and even if the Plaintiff sought, the confirmation judgment against the Defendant is rendered.