beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for payment of fines for negligence and taxes and public imposts shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant.
Reasons
1. The facts to be stated in this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the cause of claim, and the defendant led to confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on requests for the payment of fines for negligence and taxes and public charges
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant did not register the transfer of ownership after acquiring the instant vehicle on July 22, 2008, and that the Plaintiff, a registered titleholder, imposed an administrative fine and automobile tax, etc. on the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay is to be taken over
B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit ex officio.
Inasmuch as separate procedures are provided for an administrative fine or automobile tax, the Plaintiff should contest the legality of imposition of administrative fine, etc. on the ground of the circumstances alleged above in the appeal procedure. The Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is unlawful, since it does not constitute the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the existing apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, even if the Defendant received the judgment that the Plaintiff would take over the administrative fine, etc. on behalf of the Plaintiff in this case without claiming the payment of the administrative fine, etc. imposed by the Plaintiff, the judgment is effective only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but it does not affect the administrative agency that imposed the administrative fine, etc., and thus, the obligation to pay the public
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part among the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
3. The Plaintiff entered into an accord and satisfaction agreement with respect to the instant automobile at the time of the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the loan, on the ground that the Plaintiff received a loan as a person with no personal knowledge, around 2005, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not repay the loan, and the Defendant was given a substitute payment with the instant automobile.