1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. Upon the selective claims added by this court, the Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff on January 2016.

1. The defendant asserts that the principal safety defense concerning the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal does not have any interest in the lawsuit.

Although a lawsuit for confirmation is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the present rights or legal status, even in the past legal relations, if it is influenced by the present rights or legal status, and it is deemed that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations is a valid and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36407, Oct. 14, 2010). In light of such legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances, it is deemed that the Plaintiff is the most effective means to receive a judgment of confirmation of invalidation on the dismissal of the Plaintiff on March 15, 2016, in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the facility installation status, taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 24, 25 and 26 and the overall purport of pleadings

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit, since the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal of this case has a benefit of confirmation.

On March 12, 2016, the board of directors held on March 12, 2016 passed a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff as of March 15, 2016 at the facility site for D Care Village. On March 14, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of dismissal.

B. The head of the facility does not include the defendant's executive officers as stipulated in the Articles of Incorporation.

However, unlike the appointment of employees under Article 34 of the defendant's articles of incorporation, the matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of the head of the facility under Article 26 subparagraph 7 of the defendant's articles of incorporation are resolved by the board of

In addition, the head of the facility shall exercise the comprehensive and independent authority over the overall management of the facility, such as personnel, labor, and accounting management, delegated by the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the Plaintiff.