1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name established in the first instance judgment shall also be used as it is.

However, “Defendant D” is only referred to as “D.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since there is no defect to the extent that the Plaintiff’s products supplied pursuant to the instant purchase agreement could not achieve the purpose of the contract, and there is no shortage of installation quantity, it is sought to confirm that the instant business agreement entered into with the Defendant on April 21, 2014 and the instant performance guarantee agreement and the instant performance guarantee agreement do not exist any obligation for restitution and compensation.

B. As the Defendant had already agreed with Defendant D on November 25, 2016, the Defendant’s intent to recover the Plaintiff’s business contract of the instant case and the performance guarantee contract of the instant case to its original state and claim damages therefrom is without merit.

Therefore, it is contradictory to the Plaintiff’s claim of this case, as well as the benefit of lawsuit, and to seek confirmation of the absence of the above obligation while the Plaintiff was willing to perform the above obligation of restitution on its own.

3. Determination

A. In principle, there is no legal apprehension that there is no dispute between the parties with respect to this safety defense, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation. However, if the defendant asserted the legal relationship and the defendant claimed that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for confirmation, barring special circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no benefit of confirmation solely on the ground that the defendant does not dispute the legal relationship in the appellate court, unless there is a special circumstance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da74130 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 8, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to cancel the instant business contract and to restore the original state and compensate for damages therefrom on July 15, 2016, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.