1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. A lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the relevant legal principles is a lawsuit for confirmation of whether a document was forged or altered unless it was prepared by the person in whose name the document was prepared, and where it is necessary to seek confirmation of the relevant rights or legal status in order to eliminate the legal uncertainty, an independent lawsuit is allowed for confirmation of the fact that the authenticity of the document becomes final and conclusive by a judgment, on the grounds that the authenticity of the document is likely to be resolved by the parties themselves or at least to contribute to the resolution of the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da15317, Dec. 10, 191). The lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the document seeking confirmation cannot be removed even if the authenticity of the document becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, and where it is necessary to seek confirmation of the relevant rights or legal status, the action for confirmation of the authenticity of the document is unlawful as there is no interest in immediate confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da3494, Nov. 13, 2014). B.

As to the instant case, the following circumstances, which are recognized by the records and arguments of this case, i.e., the Plaintiff (J branch of the International Bus Workers' Union) and the Defendant (the chairman of the J branch of the International Bus Workers' Union) are not the parties to the labor-management agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant labor-management agreement”). ② The Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared the labor-management agreement of this case (C, D, E, F, G, H (the representative director and members of the J Co., Ltd.), F, G, H (the above, the chairman of the J Co., Ltd.), and the labor-management agreement of this case cannot be recognized as valid as a collective agreement under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.