beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
While the Plaintiff registered his/her business with the trade name "C" on July 1, 2010 and operated a household manufacturing business for office use, the Plaintiff’s father D et al. continuously traded with the Defendant during a continuous supply of goods from April 30, 2012 to September 11, 2015 without obtaining the power of representation from the Plaintiff, and the obligation to pay for the said transaction is only against D, and the Plaintiff asserts that he/she does not bear the obligation to pay for the said transaction, and that the Defendant does not have any obligation to pay for KRW 109,442,845 under a continuous supply contract during the said period.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate the danger, in danger, and in danger, in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.
In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation is likely to cause unstable legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and again, he/she is a person who asserts conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff and, if so, has the benefit of confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's argument in this case is that "C" has been actually operated as an enterprise in which "C" actually operated as "D," and the purport of the defendant's argument in this case is that "C" has been actually performed as an enterprise in which "D," and as a whole, it does not differ from the plaintiff's assertion, and the defendant does not dispute as to the fact that the plaintiff has to perform its duty