1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim (Counterclaim Plaintiff) expanded in the trial.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing the summary in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination:

A. Since an ex officio decision-making suit on the legitimacy of the main claim part of the instant service contract, which seeks to confirm the validity of the instant service contract among counter-action, is recognized where it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment in removing the anxiety and risk when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous, filing a lawsuit claiming performance, even though it is possible to bring a lawsuit claiming performance, there is no benefit of confirmation, since it is not a final solution

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). On the premise that the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant service contract, as to the principal suit demanding the Defendants to return part of the penalty stipulated in the instant service contract and the service cost already paid to the Defendants pursuant to the instant service contract, the Defendants asserted that the instant service contract is not terminated and is valid, and the Defendants asserted that the instant service contract is valid, and seek the validity confirmation of the instant service contract and the payment of the service cost under the instant service contract, as the primary counterclaim, is apparent.

Therefore, the part seeking confirmation of validity of the instant service agreement is unlawful, since it cannot be deemed as effective and appropriate means to resolve disputes, so long as a lawsuit for performance seeking payment of service price is filed on the premise that the said part is valid.

B. Of the principal claim and counterclaim claim, determination on the claim for monetary payment is 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the instant service contract was terminated due to the following reasons.

㈎ ① 피고들은 원고의 사무실에 피고들 직원을 상주시키지 아니하는 등 이 사건 용역계약에서 정한 업무를 해태하였고,...