1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The existence of litigation requirements shall be determined on the basis of the date of closing argument in fact-finding proceedings.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5932 Decided July 28, 2006). In the instant case, the Defendant’s lawsuit seeking damages against the Plaintiff, etc. in relation to traffic accidents stated in the purport of the claim (this Court Decision 2017Da217988) continues to be “a separate lawsuit”.

As a plaintiff, it can be argued that the defendant does not have a claim against the plaintiff by seeking a ruling of dismissal of the claim in the above lawsuit.

When the principal lawsuit has been withdrawn, the Defendant may withdraw the counterclaim without the Plaintiff’s consent (Article 271 of the Civil Procedure Act). Accordingly, in the event that a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of an obligation is requested to be “Counterclaim” after the filing of the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of an obligation, the benefits of confirmation as to the “principal lawsuit” are recognized. However, in the event that the Defendant claims performance as “a separate lawsuit”, even if the Defendant withdraws the lawsuit in a separate lawsuit, the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff may obtain res judicata by consenting thereto

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be viewed as a benefit of confirmation any longer.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da22246 delivered on July 24, 2001). The Defendant’s defense against this is justified.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is dismissed, and the burden of litigation cost is assessed against each party in light of the circumstances of the case. It is so decided as per Disposition.