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

2. The plaintiff's request for the transfer of ownership, procedure and takeover.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around June 2014 when requesting Nonparty C to sell and purchase the instant vehicle, and the Defendant transferred the instant vehicle to Nonparty C on or around July 15, 2014.

However, the Defendant continued to operate the instant automobile without completing the transfer registration after receiving it.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to accept the transfer registration procedure based on the transfer contract on July 15, 2014 with respect to the instant automobile from the Plaintiff, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay automobile tax and various fines for negligence on the instant automobile after the transfer date.

2. In a lawsuit to confirm the legitimacy of the part of the lawsuit in this case, there must be the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. This is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, when there is apprehensions about the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). In light of these legal principles, the part of the lawsuit in this case is deemed to be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate unstable risks (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014).

3. Judgment No. 2 on the claim for the transfer of ownership registration procedure, Gap evidence 2.