1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence (written evidence No. 4) submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

[1] Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a party who denies his/her own right or legal status claims the rights or legal relations against a third party that cannot be compatible with his/her own assertion, and thus, seeking confirmation of the existence or invalidity of the other party’s rights or legal relations against the third party. Even if a judgment is rendered in favor of the other party in a lawsuit seeking confirmation, the judgment does not confirm his/her own rights in relation to the other party, but does not affect the third party. As such, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence or invalidity cannot be an effective and appropriate means to resolve anxiety and danger existing in his/her own rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da23625, Apr. 23, 2015). The reasons why the court’s explanation in this case is stated are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the first instance except for the following cases. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part of the decision of the court of first instance which has been written shall be either of the four pages.

Above 100 10 up to

C. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff subscribed to two zones within the instant recruitment announcement. However, on February 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant that he was not selected as an agent.

B, “(c) only the Plaintiff and C have subscribed to the two zones within the instant recruitment announcement agency zone, and the Plaintiff was notified by the Defendant on February 14, 2017 that he was not selected as an agent.”

3. The instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.