1. The part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the claim for confirmation of payment of administrative fines, automobile tax, etc. shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. As to the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. among the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant did not pay the administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. that occurred while operating the instant vehicle after the Plaintiff acquired from the Plaintiff on May 31, 2013.” As to the instant vehicle, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff after the acquisition date of the instant vehicle.”

Therefore, we examine ex officio the legitimacy of the above part of the lawsuit of this case.

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 which is the subject matter of confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized in cases where the plaintiff's legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk of apprehensions when the plaintiff's legal status is in danger, and even though the plaintiff can bring a lawsuit for performance, permitting the claim for confirmation of the existence of the right

However, even if the Plaintiff received a confirmation judgment against the Defendant as alleged in this case, the obligation to pay an administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. imposed on the Plaintiff by such judgment is not transferred to the Defendant from its original source (i.e., the above confirmation judgment on internal monetary burden between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not extinguish the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the said administrative fine, automobile tax, etc. against the administrative agency or the tax authority). If the said confirmation judgment cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s legal status unstable risks, and if there is a dispute as to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant would bear the burden of paying the expenses relating to the vehicle possession and operation, the Plaintiff is obliged to claim for reimbursement equivalent to the expenses to the Defendant