1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall set out in the separate sheet 1 and 2 from the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, ex officio, determined the part concerning the claim for confirmation among the instant lawsuit, sought confirmation as to the Defendant’s liability for the transfer of ownership, since the said automobile was seized because the Defendant did not pay the administrative fines and taxes and public charges imposed thereon even though the Defendant acquired each of the instant vehicles.

An ex officio, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is a dispute between the parties regarding the legal relationship subject to it, and thus, it is recognized that the judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means in removing the plaintiff's legal status unstable and dangerous. As to the disposition of imposition of administrative fines, etc., there are separate procedures for objection against the competent administrative agency, and even if this court accepted the plaintiff's claim for confirmation, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency by the judgment of confirmation. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of this case cannot be deemed an effective and appropriate means in order to eliminate the plaintiff's legal uncertainty and danger.

(However, the plaintiff can file a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment or damages with the defendant after paying the fine for negligence imposed on each of the instant vehicles. Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation in the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed.

2. Determination on the part of the claim for the transfer registration procedure

(a)be as shown in the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);