The judgment below

The part concerning the main lawsuit is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and subsequently terminated the exclusive contract on the ground of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s breach of contract. As to the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit seeking confirmation that the validity of the exclusive contract (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 29, 2011 was nonexistent, the court below determined that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the ground that the Defendant’s notification of the termination of the exclusive contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s breach of contract is apparent in the record, since the service of the preparatory document dated January 29, 2015, in the instant lawsuit, is obviously apparent that the validity of the instant exclusive contract does not exist. Accordingly, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right or legal status as to the existence of the validity of the instant exclusive contract cannot be deemed as having any danger or apprehension.

2. However, the legal effect of legal relations, in particular the occurrence, modification or extinguishment of rights or obligations, if the legal requirements which form the cause thereof are satisfied, becomes the result;

Therefore, even if the legal effect asserted by the parties is identical, if the legal requirements so asserted are different, it cannot be said that there is no dispute over the legal relationship between the parties.

With respect to this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the principal lawsuit of this case does not have the validity of the exclusive contract of this case on the premise that the contract of this case was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s breach of contract. However, the Defendant denied the Defendant’s breach of contract and asserted the Plaintiff’s breach of contract. As such, it cannot be said that there is no dispute that the validity of the exclusive contract of this case has been nonexistent

Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiff's interest in confirming the principal lawsuit of this case is beneficial.