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

2. The defendant shall set forth in the attached Form from the plaintiff as to the automobile.

1. On January 2, 2003, when the transfer of ownership is registered in the Plaintiff’s name, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the Defendant is liable to pay any taxes and public charges, administrative fines, insurance premiums, various charges, and vehicle purchase-price imposed on the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s ex officio review the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

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, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety risk when the plaintiff's legal status is at risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). Even if the plaintiff is rendered a confirmation judgment against the defendant, the res judicata effect of the judgment is extended only between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it does not affect the State, local government, insurance company, and installment company, and therefore, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency or insurance company imposing public charges, administrative fines, etc. by the confirmation judgment, and therefore, it cannot be the most effective means to remove the plaintiff's legal status registered as the owner in the motor vehicle register.

Therefore, among the instant lawsuit, the part seeking confirmation that the Defendant is liable to pay taxes and public charges, fines for negligence, insurance premiums, various charges and charges for the purchase of vehicles is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Judgment on the claim to accept the transfer registration procedure

A. 1) The plaintiff and the defendant were married with two children under the chain, but they were divorced on June 29, 199. 2) The plaintiff is the defendant.