1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. among the instant lawsuits shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff seeking confirmation on the part of the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay the fine for negligence is the Defendant’s obligation to pay the fine for negligence, etc. from December 31, 2000, which occurred in relation to the operation of the instant motor vehicle after the Defendant acquired by transfer of the instant motor vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s ex officio

On the other hand, in the transmission of confirmation, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to the confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the legal status of the plaintiff as the confirmation judgment in order 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. Thus, it cannot be set up against the competent administrative agency that imposed the fine for negligence, etc., and it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the legal status of the plaintiff registered as the owner of

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. On December 31, 2000, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the instant automobile to the Defendant, who was a partner of the husband, and delivered all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, as the Plaintiff transferred the instant automobile to the Defendant, who was a partner of the Plaintiff (the divorce judgment became final and conclusive on August 8, 2014). As such, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer of ownership due to the transfer of ownership from the Plaintiff on December 31, 200.

As a result of the fact-finding conducted by the head of the Busan Metropolitan City, the automobile of this case will rather be made in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant in recent years.