전속계약효력부존재확인청구의소
1. The litigation for quasi-examination of this case by the defendant (quasi-examination plaintiff) shall be dismissed;
2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be assessed against.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of the absence of the validity of an exclusive contract, such as the written claim, with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap516357.
B. On May 8, 2014, the said court referred the instant case to conciliation with the same court No. 2014 money52049.
On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff appeared by his agent on the date of open conciliation, but the Defendant did not appear, and on the same day, the said court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation, “The validity of the instant exclusive agreement concluded on July 9, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not exist. The litigation costs and the conciliation costs are borne by each party.”
C. On June 19, 2014, the protocol of decision substituting the conciliation stated in the above decision (hereinafter “the protocol of quasi-examination”) was served on the Plaintiff on June 19, 2014, and was served on the Defendant on June 24, 2014. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise any objection, which became final and conclusive on July 9, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, obvious facts in records, entry of Gap evidence 7, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The defendant's assertion that: (a) the defendant did not appear on May 8, 2014; and (b) the defendant did not know the fact that the date of mediation is opened on the wind, which is served on the employees of DNA ---related consulting companies located in the same building as the defendant, but all of the decision of submission to conciliation and the date of mediation as of May 8, 2014; and (c) the report of quasi-examination of this case was served on the employees of DNA --related consulting companies on June 24, 2014; and (d) the defendant did not receive the service, while the period of filing an objection expires, the protocol of quasi-examination of this case was confirmed by illegal delivery, and there was a ground for quasi-examination; and (b) a decision substituting conciliation was unilaterally made without one of the parties' attendance and entered in the protocol.