1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for the confirmation of the liability to pay fines and taxes shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. We examine the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit ex officio, based on the determination on the claim for confirmation of payment of fines for negligence and taxes and public charges.

As the Plaintiff purchased the instant automobile in the name of the Plaintiff on September 7, 2005, and used it, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Plaintiff to confirm that the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the administrative fines and taxes imposed on the Plaintiff in relation to the instant automobile.

However, a claim in a lawsuit is limited to specific rights and legal relations, and the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is unclear, and the relationship is immediately finalized between the parties, and thus, there is a benefit of confirmation in a case where the risks or instability existing in the rights or legal status of the plaintiff in the lawsuit can be removed, and even though it is possible to bring a lawsuit for performance, allowing the claim for confirmation of the existence of the right to claim in a lawsuit for performance cannot be allowed in principle in light of the economy of the lawsuit,

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff owned the instant motor vehicle on November 22, 1994 is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation cannot be accepted as the benefit of confirmation. If the Defendant entrusted the ownership of the instant motor vehicle to the Plaintiff, then the Plaintiff must prove the expenses actually incurred and claim for reimbursement to the Defendant.

In addition, when the judgment citing the above claim for confirmation is rendered, the Plaintiff may argue that it would be used as a ground for requesting the cancellation of the seizure registration against the Plaintiff by presenting it to the administrative agency having jurisdiction over the automobile registration affairs. However, even if a title trust relationship exists as the Plaintiff’s assertion, such internal circumstance alone alone did not have any obligation to pay taxes, public charges and fines for negligence by the Plaintiff, the title holder of

confirmation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.