The reasoning for this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where the court used "the notice" of Section 6 of the first instance judgment as "the notice was given only, but does not undergo a completion inspection under the contract of this case". Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion regarding the defense before the merits is pending in the lawsuit of claim against the Defendant as a separate lawsuit for the construction cost filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, and the lawsuit is disputed as to whether or not the Plaintiff has the obligation to pay a penalty equivalent to the contract deposit to the Defendant. As such, among the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the absence of the above obligation to pay,

Judgment

In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger and danger.

A lawsuit for confirmation is not necessarily limited to a legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, but can also be the legal relationship between the plaintiff and a third party or between the third party. However, in relation to such legal relationship, it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relationship as the object of confirmation in order to eliminate the risks or apprehensions existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status. In addition, it is the benefit of confirmation that it becomes the most effective and appropriate means.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208255 Decided March 15, 2017, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2-1 and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 13-2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for claiming construction cost (hereinafter “related cases”) against the Incheon District Court Decision 2016Gahap51626 (hereinafter “related cases”), and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Defendant through a preparatory document dated January 18, 2017.