1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract for construction design of an urban environment rearrangement project with the Defendant on March 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant service contract”) in order to implement a rearrangement project with respect to the contents of removing buildings and constructing new buildings within the project implementation district of the Gu-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul and 228 parcel of land.

B. On August 22, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the service price under the instant service contract (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Gahap1822, hereinafter “related lawsuit”), and the present related lawsuit is in progress. The Plaintiff’s validity of the instant service contract becomes void on the ground that the suspension conditions were not fulfilled in the pertinent lawsuit, the termination of the instant service contract, etc., and thus, is not obligated to pay the service price.

C. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant service agreement.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, significant fact in this court, entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and purport of whole pleading

2. 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.

A suit for confirmation is an effective and appropriate means of dispute resolution, and there is a benefit of confirmation, and even though it may bring a suit for performance, which is a direct means of dispute resolution, the claim for confirmation of the existence of the claim for performance itself.

Although a lawsuit seeking the non-existence of an obligation is pending, and the debtor can contest the existence of an obligation by seeking a ruling of dismissal of the claim in the lawsuit, there is no benefit to confirm the non-existence of the obligation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246, Jul. 24, 2001). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing recognition is based on the health care unit and the above recognition.