소유권이전등기말소
1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. On May 11, 2017, with respect to a case involving ownership transfer registration filed against the Defendant by the Changwon District Court through a branch court of the Changwon District that the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant, the following mediation was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the record is apparent:
(hereinafter “instant protocol of mediation”). 1. The Plaintiff waives the instant claim.
2. The Defendant shall pay KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2017.
3. The Plaintiff does not raise any objection to the Defendant’s share among the 3,098 square meters of the Defendant’s forest C, and the 220 square meters of the Do Forest C, Tong-si, Si-si, with respect to the Defendant’s share in the forest.
4. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;
2. Judgment as to the existence of a ground for quasi-examination
A. The plaintiff's assertion during the conciliation procedure in which the plaintiff's claim was prepared, the F-Law E, who was delegated the power of attorney by the plaintiff, was present. At the time of the conciliation, the plaintiff thought that the telephone call with the lawyer was not well-grounded and responded to the conciliation agreement with the defendant that the plaintiff would return the defendant's share to the defendant. Thus, the conciliation agreement in this case has a ground for quasi-deliberation under Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the conciliation agreement in this case should be revoked.
B. Grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to cases where the attorney has no power of attorney or the right of attorney is not substantially guaranteed. In light of the fact that the power of attorney, who is an attorney, cannot be restricted by the parties, and even if it was imposed restrictions, the grounds alleged by the plaintiff are nothing more than pointing out the issue of delivery of intention with the plaintiff's internal decision or the attorney's decision, and it cannot be viewed as grounds for quasi-examination under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. In conclusion, the instant quasi-deliberation suit is filed.