[2] In a case where Gap filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the validity of the exclusive contract does not exist by asserting that the exclusive contract was terminated on the ground of the violation of the contract of Eul corporation, and Eul notified Eul company that the exclusive contract was terminated on the ground of the violation of the contract of Eul, the case holding that there is no dispute between Gap and Eul since the exclusive contract was invalid

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation that Eul terminated the exclusive contract on the ground of Eul's violation of the contract, and Eul notified Eul to cancel the exclusive contract on the ground of Gap's violation of the contract, since Eul's claim does not have the validity of the exclusive contract on the ground that Eul terminated the exclusive contract on the ground of Eul's violation of the contract, since Eul denies's violation of the contract and Eul's violation of the contract, it cannot be said that there is no dispute that the validity of the exclusive contract between Eul and Eul does not exist.

1. The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and subsequently terminated the exclusive contract on the ground of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s breach of contract. As to the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit seeking confirmation that the validity of the exclusive contract (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 29, 2011 was nonexistent, the court below determined that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant’s notification of the termination of the exclusive contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract is apparent in the record, since the service of the preparatory document dated January 29, 2015, in the instant lawsuit, is obviously apparent that the validity of the instant exclusive contract does not exist. Accordingly, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right or legal status as to the existence of the validity of the instant exclusive contract cannot be deemed as having any danger or apprehension.

2. However, the legal effect, such as the occurrence, modification, or extinction of rights or obligations, is the result when the legal requirements which form the cause thereof are satisfied. Therefore, even if the legal effect alleged by the parties are identical, if the legal requirements alleged by the parties are different, it cannot be deemed that there exists no dispute as to the legal relationship between the parties.

With respect to this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the principal lawsuit of this case does not have the validity of the exclusive contract of this case on the premise that the contract of this case was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s breach of contract. However, the Defendant denied the Defendant’s breach of contract and asserted the Plaintiff’s breach of contract. As such, it cannot be said that there is no dispute that the validity of the exclusive contract of this case has been nonexistent

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit of this case was unlawful on the ground that there was no benefit of confirmation. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the benefit of confirmation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part concerning the principal lawsuit among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)