1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s determination on the claim for confirmation is sought to confirm that the Defendant did not register the transfer of ownership after acquiring the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff, a registered titleholder, imposed an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc., and the Defendant

Ex officio, this part of the lawsuit is deemed lawful. In the lawsuit for confirmation, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is acknowledged in cases where there is dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the lawsuit and where there is apprehension or risk of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, thereby obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk.

However, inasmuch as separate procedures for objection against fines for negligence and taxes and public charges are provided, the Plaintiff ought to contest the legality of imposition, including fines for negligence, on the ground of the circumstances alleged above in the appeal procedure. Even if the Plaintiff received a confirmation judgment, the said judgment remains effective only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and does not extend to the administrative agency that imposed fines for negligence, etc., insofar as such confirmation judgment may act in favor of the Plaintiff in the appeal procedure against the administrative agency, it cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s legal status

In addition, it is doubtful whether the purport of the claim can be confirmed by the above statement, as the plaintiff stated in this part of the claim that "the obligation to pay an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. imposed in the name of the plaintiff in relation to the operation of the automobile.

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The fact that the plaintiff, on November 6, 2006, transferred the motor vehicle indicated in the attached list to the defendant on November 6, 2006, is clearly indicated by the defendant.