beta
Text
1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of invalidation of a contract in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The defendant shall pay 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff and this shall apply.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, on February 26, 2016, sought confirmation that the franchise agreement between B and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) entered into with the Defendant on February 26, 2016, is null and void. As such, the Plaintiff’s determination on the legitimacy of the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidation of the contract is ex officio
A lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine as a judgment for confirmation when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable in danger. Thus, even though a lawsuit for confirmation may be brought to seek implementation, it is not a final solution of dispute, and there is no benefit of confirmation.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006). In a case where there is a dispute over the validity of the contract of this case, the most effective way to resolve the dispute is to request the performance, such as seeking restitution according to the validity of the contract of this case. The judgment confirming the invalidity of the contract of this case cannot immediately eliminate the risk of the plaintiff's status.
As seen below, the Plaintiff, as the instant lawsuit, sought the return of KRW 10,000,00, which is based on the premise that the instant contract is null and void, as well as the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the instant contract. The claim for return of KRW 10,000,000, which is ultimately a method of resolving disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant surrounding the instant contract. The part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the instant contract is an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s risk of legal status.
Therefore, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of invalidation of a contract in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
2. Determination as to the remainder of the claim (as to the claim for performance of money)
A. On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff’s claim indication Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant, and for two years, the Plaintiff’s goodwill as to B from the Defendant.