1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay taxes and public charges (including fines for negligence) among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed;

2. The defendant.

1. We examine whether the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay taxes and public charges (including fines for negligence) among the instant lawsuit is lawful ex officio.

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 of confirmation is rendered 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). Even if a judgment of confirmation is rendered against the Defendant, as sought in the Plaintiff’s purport, the judgment is effective only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the obligation to pay fines, taxes, public charges, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff cannot be transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant or cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency based on the said judgment. Accordingly, the said judgment cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s legal status’

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation that the Defendant is liable to pay taxes and public charges, including administrative fines, among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation

2. As to the claim to accept the transfer registration procedure

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment without applicable provisions of Acts (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);