1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for confirmation of the liability to pay taxes, public charges, and fines shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. The Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Defendant is liable to pay taxes, public charges, and fines for negligence after acquiring a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet on April 30, 2007 (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), and then confirmed that the Defendant has the obligation to pay taxes, public charges, and fines for negligence arising from the said motor vehicle. The Plaintiff’s ex officio considers this part of the lawsuit lawful.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment in removing the anxiety and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). However, even if the plaintiff is rendered confirmation judgment against the defendant for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency imposing public charges or a fine for negligence, and the plaintiff's obligation to pay the public charges, etc. registered as the owner in the register of automobile cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status and danger. Thus, the part of the lawsuit in this case cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to confirm the plaintiff's legal status and liability for payment.

If the Plaintiff’s claim is deemed to have sought confirmation against the Defendant that the Defendant is obligated to pay money equivalent to taxes, public charges, and administrative fines imposed in the future, it may be possible to seek confirmation of the Plaintiff’s obligation rather than the obligation to the State or local governments. However, if the Plaintiff’s claim is for the same purpose, the Defendant is given the same purport.