청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the fact that the above ruling (hereinafter referred to as “the ruling of recommending reconciliation”) becomes final and conclusive by the Defendant’s filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on Oct. 21, 2015 against the Plaintiff, which stated that “the Plaintiff of this case (the Plaintiff of this case) shall pay KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case) until November 30, 2015, and KRW 5 million until December 31, 2015, and KRW 5 million until January 31, 2015, and five million until January 31, 2016.”
2. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case. Although the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation in this case, the plaintiff was bound to prepare a guarantee that falls short of the defendant's hot spring, and the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation in this case was made based on the invalid guarantee certificate as above. Thus, the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation in this case is unfair and seek to exclude its enforcement power.
3. As seen earlier, even if the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case became final and conclusive with the purport of paying a certain amount to the Defendant, as seen earlier, as alleged by the Plaintiff, once the decision of recommending reconciliation becomes final and conclusive, the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment (s judicata and executory power) is deemed to have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment unless the decision of recommending reconciliation is revoked by a quasi-adjudication. The above reason alleged by the Plaintiff was that it had existed before the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case became final and conclusive, and thus,
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case cannot be accepted because it is not possible to seek an executory exclusion of the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case on the grounds of such reasons.
4. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is groundless.