1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On September 15, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) donated an automobile in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant automobile”) to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant bears the Defendant’s obligation to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 5,908,818 to the Plaintiff’s Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.; and (b) delivered the instant automobile along with all the documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of the automobile.

B. After acquiring the instant vehicle, the Defendant did not perform all of its duty of administrative fines, arrears, automobile taxes, and installment payments of the instant vehicle while operating the instant vehicle without transferring the registered name.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay fines for negligence, arrears, automobile tax, installment payments of automobile, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff in relation to the instant automobile is sought to verify the Defendant.

2. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful) ex officio, and the lawsuit for confirmation is recognized where obtaining a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006). (B) In the instant case, even if the Plaintiff was rendered confirmation against the Defendant on the foregoing grounds, even if the Plaintiff was given confirmation, the obligation to pay fines, arrears, automobile tax, installment payments, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff by the said judgment is not transferred to the Defendant from the Plaintiff. Thus, the said judgment cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s legal status unstable danger.

The res judicata effect of this lawsuit is effective only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it does not extend to the state and local governments and Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.. Therefore, the judgment of this case alone is that the plaintiff's liability to pay the administrative fine, delinquent payment, automobile tax, etc. against the administrative agency which imposed the tax authority or the administrative fine, etc.