In the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim for confirmation of payment obligation, such as administrative fines and automobile tax, is dismissed.

The defendant.

Facts of recognition

There is no dispute, or according to the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the head of Gangseo-gu, the head of Gangseo-gu and the head of Gangseo-gu police station, the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer on October 25, 200 with respect to the automobiles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant vehicle") in the annexed sheet, and thereafter, the defendant acquired the instant vehicle and driven it, caused a traffic accident on August 5, 2006 while driving it, and entered into an obligatory insurance contract with Samsung Fire on August 23, 2006 with respect to the instant vehicle.

As to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Defendant is liable to pay an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. imposed in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the operation of the said vehicle from October 31, 2002, on the date of transferring the instant vehicle to

However, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where 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 Decision 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994). In light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff was rendered a confirmation judgment against the Defendant for the same reason as the Plaintiff alleged, res judicata effect of the judgment is limited between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the State or local government is not limited to the State or local government, and thus, it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency that imposed automobile tax, etc., and therefore, the instant confirmation judgment against the Defendant cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay administrative fines, automobile tax, etc. in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit

Judgment on the claim for the transfer registration procedure is made.