1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. On June 28, 201, on the basis of the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that “Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance” is removed from “Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 14 of the judgment,” “1,34,47,723 won,” “134,447,723 won,” “134, 447,723 won,” and “The Defendant claimed the performance bond of the instant service contract against the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on August 5, 2011,” except for the addition of “No. 1, 2, 3, and 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance to “No. 1,34,47,723 won,” and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On June 28, 201, the Plaintiff asserted the absence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay penalty against the Defendant following the termination of the contract regarding the instant service contract, and the Defendant asserted that the contract deposit under the instant service contract is a legal relationship between the Defendant and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and thus, the instant primary claim is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, since it seeks confirmation on the legal relationship between the Defendant and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.

On the other hand, the plaintiff does not seek confirmation of the absence of claim for payment of contract deposit against Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., but seeks confirmation of the absence of claim for damages caused by the plaintiff's non-performance of the service contract of this case against the defendant. Thus, it is the most effective and appropriate method to obtain confirmation against the defendant that the defendant has no obligation for payment of contract deposit under the service contract of this case against the defendant as the policyholder under the contract guarantee insurance contract of this case and the plaintiff who is in the status of the principal debtor in the performance guarantee contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

B. The plaintiff's judgment on the merits 1.