1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the freight of KRW 53,124,50 to the Defendant does not exist.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the export and import business of kitchen supplies, and the Defendant is a corporation that runs the cargo transport business, etc.

B. From July 15, 2015 to March 16, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail to the effect that: (a) the Defendant transported the Defendant’s cargo between July 15, 2015 and March 16, 2016; (b) the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 53,124,50; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation of this case on April 28, 2016; and (d) the instant warden reached the Defendant on May 4, 2016.

C. On the other hand, on May 3, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for transportation charges (after transfer, Incheon District Court Decision 2016Kadan226355, hereinafter “the claim for the performance of a separate case”) by Busan District Court Decision 2016Da317241, May 12, 2016, and the warden of the instant case reached the Plaintiff on May 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On May 3, 2016, prior to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant complaint, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit ought to be dismissed on the grounds that there was no benefit of confirmation, since the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming for the performance of a separate claim seeking a transportation fee of KRW 53,124,500 against the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, if the plaintiff sought the confirmation of the absence of the damages liability against the defendant due to the benefit of seeking the confirmation of the absence of the damages liability, the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking the performance of the damages liability thereafter, since the principal lawsuit which was lawfully filed by meeting the requirements for the lawsuit after the other party's counterclaim.

Even if such circumstance alone is insufficient to deem that the interest in confirmation of the principal claim is extinguished and the principal claim is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da2428, Jul. 15, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.