1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of obligation to pay automobile tax and penalty among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay automobile tax, penalty, and administrative fine among the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff seeks to confirm that the Defendant received the transfer of the instant vehicle, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay automobile tax, penalty, and fine for negligence incurred on and after May 12, 2010.

B. 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 make the judgment to eliminate the Plaintiff’s unstable risk when the Plaintiff’s legal status is in unstable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment on the grounds as above, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend only between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. contributed to the Plaintiff is not transferred to the Defendant, and the liability for payment is not extinguished, such as the Plaintiff’s administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. against the administrative agency imposing the tax authority and the administrative fine, etc., and the said judgment cannot be the most effective and appropriate means

C. Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of automobile tax, penalty, and fine for negligence in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Determination on claims for the transfer of ownership registration procedures

A. On April 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 6 million to the lender as security; and (b) issued a transfer contract, certificate of personal seal impression, certificate of renunciation of vehicle, and written permission for operation; and (c) as long as the Defendant purchased and operated the instant vehicle, it is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure as the Plaintiff acquired and transferred the instant vehicle before it. (b) The Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure.