1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff paid the construction price to the Defendant after completing the construction work in accordance with the subcontract for the establishment of a household concluded with the Defendant. However, the Defendant is seeking confirmation that each tax invoice for KRW 198,300,000 for the year 201 and KRW 140,280 for the year 2012 was not issued.

The benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is allowed only when the plaintiff's right or legal status is in danger, and the defendant is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension and danger. The object of confirmation is limited to the current specific rights, obligations, or legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da1420, Dec. 10, 191; 91Da25413, Oct. 8, 1991). In addition, the fact that the defendant did not issue a tax invoice to the plaintiff is merely a fact-finding, and it cannot be subject to the determination of confirmation. The plaintiff's lawsuit for confirmation as to this case cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute over the current legal relationship by seeking the issuance of a tax invoice directly issued to the defendant.

2. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.