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. Basic facts

A. On February 2001, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the person who was unaware of his name at the end of the year, and delivered the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant automobiles”) as collateral.

B. As the Plaintiff failed to repay the above borrowed money, the above person who was unaware of the name was disposed of the instant automobile.

C. On November 13, 2003, the Defendant acquired the instant automobile from a seller of the middle and high-ranking vehicles through the Internet Packaging, and concluded the automobile insurance contract with the Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. as the insured on the same day, and operated the instant automobile.

The Defendant transferred the instant motor vehicle to a secondhand distributor in around 2006 without cooperating with the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership on the instant motor vehicle, while the Defendant failed to complete the procedure for the transfer of ownership on the instant motor vehicle.

(1) According to the court's fact-finding response to the fact-finding on August 8, 2006, the automobile insurance contract was concluded between the other insurer and the insured on the ground of automobile substitution on August 8, 2006. 【The ground for recognition' is the fact-finding, Gap evidence No. 1, the old chief of the police station and Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the part concerning the claim for confirmation of liability for payment, such as fines for negligence and automobile tax, is legitimate

A. The plaintiff, after the defendant acquired the instant automobile on November 13, 2003, operated the instant automobile without transferring its name, and thus, imposed an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. on the plaintiff, who is the owner of the automobile registration. Thus, since November 13, 2003, the plaintiff sought confirmation that the defendant has the obligation to pay the administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. incurred on the instant automobile, which occurred after November 13, 2003, and therefore, the claim for confirmation is lawful.