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.

Facts of recognition

Since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) on September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff was registered as its owner in the register of motor vehicles until now, and the Plaintiff offered the instant motor vehicle as security by obtaining a loan from a person with no personal knowledge on July 2013, and the Defendant purchased the instant motor vehicle from a person with no personal knowledge on his/her name on September 10, 2014 and entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. as to the instant motor vehicle from September 10 to March 10, 2015 with the insurance period from September 10 to March 201, 2015, or is recognized by the fact that: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; and (b) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 2, and 3 evidence of this Court; and (c) fact-finding results and the purport of the entire arguments as to the Daegu Construction Police Station.

The Plaintiff, as to the claim for confirmation, sought confirmation that the Defendant did not transfer ownership after the acquisition of the instant vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff, a registered titleholder, imposed taxes and public charges, such as administrative fines and automobile taxes, and the Defendant is liable for such payment.

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, in this case, separate procedures for objection to fines for negligence, taxes and public charges are provided, so the plaintiff should dispute the legality of imposition of fines for negligence, etc. on the ground of the circumstances alleged above in the appeal procedure. Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment, the effect of the judgment can only be limited to that between the plaintiff and the defendant,