1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall set forth in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s determination on the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the obligation to pay administrative fines, etc. is sought to confirm that the Defendant had the obligation to pay automobile tax and administrative fines arising on the instant motor vehicle after the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle. Therefore, we examine the legitimacy of

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 subject to it, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the plaintiff's legal status as the confirmation judgment to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005). However, even if the plaintiff is confirmed against the defendant for the same reason as the above assertion, the res judicata effect of the judgment is only effective between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it does not affect the State or local government. Thus, it cannot be asserted against the competent administrative agency imposing public charges or fines, and the plaintiff's obligation to pay public charges, etc., registered as the owner in

Therefore, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to get this part of the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation of automobile tax and fine for negligence in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Requests for acquisition of the transfer registration procedures;

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act;