1. Of the instant lawsuit, the obligation to pay the fine for negligence imposed on the motor vehicle indicated in the attachment.

1. As to the claim for confirmation of the duty to pay administrative fines, etc. in the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff sought confirmation that the defendant had the obligation to pay administrative fines, etc. from November 21, 2008, which occurred in relation to the operation of the motor vehicle of this case after the transfer of the motor vehicle of this case, the defendant has the obligation to pay administrative fines

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship which is the subject matter of confirmation, 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 Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994). 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 extend only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it does not affect the State or local governments, and thus, it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency imposing the administrative fine, etc., and it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status

In the lawsuit of this case, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay administrative fines is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

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

A. (1) Since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant motor vehicle on May 10, 2007, the Plaintiff is registered as the owner in the motor vehicle register until now.

(2) Around September 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of transfer of the instant automobile with a loan from a person who was not the beneficiary of his name, and the said certificate of transfer contains a special clause stipulating that the transfer shall be transferred to a third party if the seizure and establishment are not terminated by September 22, 2008, which is the remainder payment date.

(3) On November 21, 2008, the Defendant purchased the instant automobile from a person with no personal knowledge, and the said automobile was destroyed by the fire insurance.