1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion B leased a construction business license from the Defendant and concluded a construction contract with the Defendant to construct a building (hereinafter “building No. 1”) with a construction cost of KRW 700,000,000 on the ground under the name of the Defendant, Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “No. 1”) with a construction cost of KRW 186,00,000,000. On the same day, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract with a construction cost of KRW 70,000,000,000 on the ground (hereinafter “No. 2”).

On November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a land No. 2 and a building No. 2 from E and reselled the unregistered resale. On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased a land No. 1 and a building No. 1 from C, and during which process, paid KRW 700 million as construction price to B, and repaid KRW 400 million as a loan secured by a land No. 1 and a building No. 2. 1.

Nevertheless, the defendant continues to claim payment of KRW 300 million to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to confirm that there is no obligation to pay KRW 300 million to the Defendant by the instant lawsuit.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the suit.

A. The lawsuit for confirmation is permitted when it is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute, where the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is in danger and in danger, and the confirmation is rendered.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da5640 Decided April 11, 200, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Da206492 Decided June 11, 2015). Lawsuits for confirmation of the existence of an obligation pending in a performance lawsuit do not have the benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246 Decided July 24, 2001). The standard time for determining the existence of an interest in a lawsuit is the time when the fact-finding pleadings are concluded.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9329 delivered on October 27, 1992). B.

According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is pending in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the construction cost obligation.