1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant via the Nonparty, and delivered the instant motor vehicle, but the Defendant did not subscribe only to the insurance for the instant motor vehicle while acquiring the instant motor vehicle and did not transfer its name.

B. Since the Defendant imposed various administrative fines and taxes under the name of the Plaintiff while operating the instant vehicle after receiving the instant vehicle, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure based on the transfer of ownership from the Plaintiff on October 31, 2012. From October 31, 2012, the Defendant seeks to confirm that the Defendant is liable to pay various administrative fines and automobile taxes imposed in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the operation of the instant vehicle from October 31, 2012.

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant, although the defendant did not have acquired the automobile of this case, since the lawsuit of this case was filed against the non-qualified person.

In a lawsuit for performance, a person who asserts himself/herself as a person entitled to claim performance has standing to sue and is asserted as a person obligated to perform performance, and thus has standing to be the defendant, and the plaintiff's assertion itself is standing to sue, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not need to be the person obligated to perform

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994, etc.). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful because it was not the party to whom the instant automobile was transferred, merely pertains to the existence of an obligation to perform as an object of examination on the merits, and thus, the Defendant’s principal safety defense is groundless.

3. We examine the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the statement No. 1, the fact inquiry reply to the Sacheon-si and Sacheon Police Station alone, and the defendant from the plaintiff.