1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the claim for confirmation of the termination of the partnership agreement concluded on April 7, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of the lawfulness of the part concerning the claim for confirmation of the business relationship of this case, there should be interests in confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights. The benefits in confirmation need to be immediately removed because of the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status unstable and danger, and the removal of such apprehension and risk is recognized only when the defendant’s confirmation judgment against the defendant is the most effective means (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da21559, Aug. 11, 1995). As examined below, insofar as the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to pay settlement money to the Defendant on the premise that the business relationship of this case with the Defendant was terminated, there is no interest to seek confirmation of the termination of the business relationship of this case, which is the premise of the premise.

The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of wage-free debt against the Defendant, and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with each of the 50 million won investments to operate livestock product sales business on April 7, 2017, and the instant partnership relationship was terminated by the Defendant’s withdrawal from the partnership relationship. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 43 million to the Defendant on two occasions on March 2, 2017 and March 22, 2018, and paid a total of KRW 10 million to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant completed settlement following the termination of the partnership relationship. The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of wage-free debt against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of the completion of the partnership relationship among the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, the Plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.