1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant filed a claim for the payment of goods amounting to KRW 61,908,000 against the Plaintiff on November 17, 2016. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of goods without any evidentiary material, despite the fact that the Defendant ordered the goods or received goods from the Defendant.

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit

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 the existence of an obligation pending in a performance lawsuit do not have a benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246 Decided July 24, 2001). The standard time for determining the existence of a benefit of a lawsuit is the time of closure of pleadings at the fact-finding court.

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

On May 26, 2017, where the lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of the obligation of this case is pending, the defendant filed a suit against the plaintiff et al. for performance (Seoul Central District Court 2017Gahap536307 case) seeking the payment of the price for the goods for which the plaintiff et al. seeks confirmation of absence, and the fact that the plaintiff respondeds while submitting the document is significant in this court

As a matter of principle, res judicata of the judgment dismissing a lawsuit of performance filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, etc. is identical to the purpose that the Plaintiff seeks to achieve by the lawsuit of this case, which is the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the obligation. The existence and scope of the obligation to pay the price for the goods of this case is determined in the performance lawsuit seeking payment of the said price for the goods, may avoid conflict and ultimately resolve

On the other hand, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the obligation, and the defendant of the principal lawsuit shall perform the obligation.