1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay an administrative fine and automobile tax among the lawsuits in this case is dismissed.

2. The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the claim for confirmation

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that on August 31, 2001, the Plaintiff sold a motor vehicle indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) to the Defendant, and sought confirmation that the Defendant was liable to pay an administrative fine and automobile tax imposed in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the operation of the instant motor vehicle from August 31, 2001, which is the date of sale of the instant motor vehicle.

B. We examine whether this part of the lawsuit is lawful as a judgment employee on the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status due to dispute between the parties with respect to the legal relationship subject to confirmation.

However, the obligation to pay fines for negligence and automobile tax imposed on the Plaintiff by the confirmation judgment sought by the Plaintiff is not transferred from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay fines for negligence and automobile tax on the administrative agency imposing the tax authority

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of fines for negligence and liability for automobile tax in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation since it cannot be the most appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s anxiety and risk.

2. Determination on the claim for the acquisition of the automobile ownership transfer registration procedure

A. Indication of claims: It is as shown in the Attached Form “Cause of Claim”.

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. As such, the part of the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay the fine for negligence and automobile tax in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. Thus, the part of the claim for acquisition of transfer of ownership is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.