1. All of the claims for the confirmation of the existence of an obligation added by this court among the claims in this case are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Ex officio determination on the legality of the part of the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the instant lawsuit

A. In addition to the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation, the Plaintiff added the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of existence of an obligation to the Defendant, which sought confirmation that there is no liability for the Plaintiff to the Defendant around the time of termination of partnership relations, such as the Plaintiff’s request for dissolution of partnership or withdrawal from partnership, etc., and that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant against the Defendant does not exist in excess of KRW 50 million around the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the said partnership does not exist in excess of KRW 100,000.

B. A lawsuit for confirmation of judgment requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the Plaintiff’s obligation or partnership with the Defendant is the most effective means to obtain a judgment of confirmation against the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Da34934, Jul. 28, 2011; 2009Da38155, Nov. 13, 2014). The subject of confirmation sought by the Plaintiff in addition to the Plaintiff’s claim by this court constitutes a lawsuit for future confirmation against the Defendant by the Plaintiff or partnership with the Defendant, where the Plaintiff and the Defendant are to be borne by the Plaintiff against the Defendant when the future liquidation is completed, which constitutes a claim for future confirmation.

However, as determined below, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff and the defendant were in a partnership relationship, and even if the plaintiff and the defendant were in a partnership relationship, they cannot immediately seek the distribution of residual assets without undergoing the liquidation procedure, so it is difficult to view that all remaining assets and remaining obligations after the completion of the liquidation have been confirmed. Thus, the plaintiff received a judgment to confirm the future obligations against the defendant.