1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant concluded a business agreement with D and E and operated a wedding hall with the trade name “G” on the fourth and fifth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul FO center, and closed the business on December 31, 2016.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the price of goods as Seoul Southern District Court 2017Gaso28243, which was not paid the price of goods, which had been supplied with the goods, such as molds, oil, and shoulder, by the end of the end of 2016 at the instant wedding hall. On May 1, 2018, the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 17,826,000 won jointly and severally with D, E, and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from July 15, 2017 to the day of full payment.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff owned 10% shares of the instant wedding, but did not obtain any profit therefrom. The Defendant appealed to Seoul Southern District Court 2018Na55638 by asserting that D and E exclusively in charge of the operation of the instant wedding hall, but the Defendant did not participate in the operation of the instant wedding hall. However, upon entering into an agreement with D and E to operate the instant wedding hall, on October 18, 2018, the Plaintiff’s dismissal judgment was sentenced on October 18, 2018 on the ground that as long as the instant wedding hall was operated, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not incur any obligation due to the operation of the instant wedding hall. The lower judgment was finalized on November 10, 2018.

(hereinafter “Prior Action”). [Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in B-1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D and E transferred the instant wedding business to H Co., Ltd. on March 8, 2017 (A). As such, H Co., Ltd. is merely liable for the payment of goods to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is not liable for the payment of goods to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff is seeking confirmation that there is no liability for the judgment based on the preceding lawsuit.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s obligation to seek confirmation of absence is the price for the goods that recognized the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay.