1. Of the instant principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim for confirmation of the absence of the audit status against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) D.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Of the principal lawsuit of this case, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the audit status is permitted only where there is an immediate final interest in the lawsuit seeking confirmation, namely, in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the plaintiff's rights or legal status. The resolution of a general meeting of partners of a partnership company or a limited partnership company is a company that is a decision-making by the company, and thus, the legal entity is the legal entity. Thus, the resolution of a general meeting of partners of the partnership company or a limited partnership company is a company, and the legal entity is a company, which can remove the plaintiff's rights or legal status effectively by the resolution, and the judgment of confirmation against the non-company members, etc. is not a company, and therefore, the lawsuit seeking such confirmation is unlawful, as there is no interest in immediate final

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da14058 delivered on June 25, 1991, etc.). Since the Plaintiffs seek confirmation of the absence of audit status against Defendant D, who is not the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiffs sought confirmation of the absence of audit status, the legality of the judgment ex officio against the auditor cannot be said to affect the Plaintiff Company. Thus, the judgment of confirmation of the absence of a status against the auditor cannot be said to be effective. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ rights or legal status may be effectively cut off, and therefore, there is no benefit of immediate confirmation.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs' claim on this part among the principal lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

2. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff Company is the franchise of “G” brand (hereinafter “instant franchise”).

(2) The Defendant D is the Plaintiff Company, which is the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff Company is the actual operator of the Plaintiff Company with the Plaintiff’s children. (3) Defendant D is the Plaintiff Company, which is the Human Telecommunications Corporation (hereinafter “H”).