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

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. We examine whether the part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the claim for confirmation is lawful ex officio.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there should be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is disputed between the parties on the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and due to which, if there is unstable risk in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, it can be acknowledged where the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate unstable risk.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). However, even if a judgment was rendered upon confirmation by the Plaintiff, the effect of the judgment does not directly extend to an administrative agency, etc., and the obligation to pay fines, taxes, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff as a matter of course is not transferred to the Defendant.

In addition, there is a separate appeal procedure against the imposition of automobile tax and fine for negligence.

Considering this point, the part of the claim for confirmation in the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s anxiety or risk.

Therefore, this part of the claim is unlawful.

2. Judgment on the claim to accept the transfer registration procedure

A. The purport of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the bond company whose name cannot be known in an economically difficult situation as collateral for the vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant vehicle”). The Defendant acquired the instant vehicle directly or by transfer through Nonparty, and the Defendant is obliged to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant vehicle from the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) In a case where the transferee of a motor vehicle does not transfer the title of registration even if the transferee received the motor vehicle from the transferor, the transferor may seek against the transferee the procedure for accepting the transfer of ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003. Apr. 1