1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

First of all, since there is res judicata effect on the part of the claim for the takeover of the automobile ownership transfer registration procedure, if the party who received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of him files a lawsuit against the other party of the previous suit identical to that of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of him, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit

As to the instant case, in full view of the health unit, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff sold a motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant motor vehicle") to the Defendant on September 3, 2008, but the Defendant did not take over the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the instant motor vehicle, thereby filing a lawsuit for the claim for the acquisition of the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the instant motor vehicle by Incheon District Court 2012No. 53610, and the said court rendered a judgment on September 12, 2012, that "the Defendant will take over the procedure for ownership transfer registration from the Plaintiff for the instant motor vehicle on September 3, 2008," thereby recognizing the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

According to the above facts, this part of the lawsuit seeking the acquisition of ownership transfer registration procedure with respect to the automobile of this case due to the sale on September 3, 2008 is about the same subject matter of lawsuit as the final and conclusive judgment existing in favor of the defendant, and is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights

In addition, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to take over the administrative fine and the tax and public dues imposed after September 3, 2008 on the instant automobile.

However, there are separate procedures for objection against the competent administrative agency regarding the imposition of fines for negligence, and the validity of this judgment setting the obligation to pay fines for negligence on the instant motor vehicle between the plaintiff and the defendant does not affect the administrative agency or the tax authority.