1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who engages in food business with the trade name of “D”, and Defendant B is an individual entrepreneur who engages in wholesale and retail business of fishery products under the trade name of “E”.

In June 2016, Defendant B supplied the Plaintiff with fishery products, such as booms, the transaction was suspended on or around June 2016.

B. On September 30, 2016, Defendant B transferred KRW 65,603,960 to Defendant C’s claim for the price of goods against the Plaintiff, and notified the purport on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The Plaintiff, ex officio, filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant B by asserting that Defendant B transferred the claim for the price of the goods that the goods did not exist to Defendant C even though the Plaintiff fully repaid the purchase price of the goods to Defendant B.

As seen in the above Paragraph 1, Defendant B transferred the claim for the price of goods against the Plaintiff to Defendant C, notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims, and the Defendants did not have any dispute over the validity of the assignment of claims. Thus, seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation against Defendant B, the transferor of claims, cannot be an effective and appropriate means to eliminate existing risks or instability in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 appears to be a clerical error in the year 2015, written in the written complaint in 2014.

The goods supplied by Defendant B are supplied with the goods of dissolution, such as fall, and the settlement has been made from time to time. The goods supplied by Defendant B are not inconsistent with the ordered weight, and the transaction has been suspended due to the lack of good condition.

From June 20, 2014 to August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid to Defendant B a total of KRW 322,222,50 as the price of goods, thereby discharging all obligations.

Defendant C acquires from Defendant B.