대여금
1. All of the lawsuits for quasi-deliberation of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.
1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim, such as the description of the purport of the claim (this Court 2013da58704). The fact that the instant case was referred to conciliation (hereinafter “instant conciliation”) and the content thereof was entered in the protocol subject to quasi-examination (hereinafter “instant protocol”) on the date of conciliation conducted on December 17, 2013, and the conciliation as described in the attached clause (hereinafter “instant protocol”) was established on the date of conciliation conducted on December 17, 2013.
2. Whether a lawsuit for quasi-examination is legitimate;
A. The defendant, under Article 451(1)4, 5, and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, was subject to psychological pressure from his mediators to the effect that he had the right to not respond to the mediation, and was not informed that he had the right to refuse to respond to the mediation. After the mediation of this case was established, the defendant asked the court about the method of protesting against the above mediation, and the related parties such as the junior administrative officer, etc. asked the defendant of wrong answers that there was no way of protesting despite the existence of the method of remedy by quasi-adjudication. The plaintiff's complaint submitted by the plaintiff was modified, and thus, there was a ground for retrial under each of the above provisions.
As to the grounds for retrial under each of the above provisions, a retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive, or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence pursuant to Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
However, in the case of this case, a judgment of conviction or fine for negligence was finalized on each of the grounds for retrial alleged by the defendant.
There is no assertion or proof that such a judgment or trial cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence. Therefore, each quasi-deliberation suit in this part is unlawful because it does not meet the lawful requirements.
(b) the Act;