1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay an administrative fine among the instant lawsuits is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall attach a separate sheet from the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay fines among the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Defendant is liable to pay a fine for negligence equivalent to KRW 2,010,400 arising from the instant motor vehicle after the Defendant acquired the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”), and that the Defendant is the Defendant, by its own authority, as to whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate or not.

B. 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 to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da4089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant for the same reason as the plaintiff alleged, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not affect only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency that imposed the administrative fine by the judgment, and since the plaintiff's obligation to pay the administrative fine on the plaintiff registered as the owner in the register of automobiles is not extinguished, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status anxiety and danger.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay fines among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination on the part of the claim for the transfer registration procedure

A. A. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 4,000,000 from the Defendant, a credit service provider, for a period of three months, and provided the Defendant with a motor vehicle registration certificate, the Plaintiff’s certificate of personal seal impression, and a certified copy of resident registration necessary for the transfer of the instant motor vehicle and its name as a security for the said borrowed money. (ii) The Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014.