약정금
1. The plaintiff (the quasi-Appellant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).
1. On September 21, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the agreed amount under the 2005Gahap683 of the Gwangju District Court, which was subject to quasi-examination. On September 21, 2005, the conciliation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was prepared after the Plaintiff and the Defendant appeared at each of the conciliation dates and the conciliation of the same content as the attached clause was established.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not first adjusted the instant protocol with the Defendant, etc. in the case No. 2004Gahap1887, which served as the basis for the instant protocol of mediation. On September 21, 2005, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of mediation and responded to the conciliation by the circumstance that “67 million won is to be paid within one week,” and the Defendant was present on September 21, 2005, and the instant protocol of mediation was completely different.
In addition, on June 26, 2007, the judgment was rendered in favor of C and D in the case of the lease deposit against the Defendant and E filed by the Plaintiff’s spouse C and his wife D against the Defendant and E, and became final and conclusive around that time. The judgment is inconsistent with the conclusion of the case and the quasi-adjudication of the Gwangju District Court 2004Gahap1887 case and the case subject to re-adjudication.
Therefore, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)6, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant protocol of conciliation.
3. Determination
A. A lawsuit for quasi-deliberation under Article 451(1)6 (a) and 9 (a) of the Civil Procedure Act (a case where a document or any other article used as evidence for judgment has been forged or altered) is applicable under Article 451(1)6 (a) and 9 (a case where any judgment is omitted with regard to a material fact that may affect a judgment) shall be brought within five years from the time the conciliation is concluded (Article 461 and 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and a lawsuit for quasi-adjudication of this case is clearly recorded on November 29, 2016, which was brought five years after the date the conciliation of this case was concluded.