1. The decision of recommending a compromise has the same effect as a judicial compromise (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act). If a settlement between the parties has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and if a settlement contract between the parties forms the content thereof, the settlement shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act), the settlement shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment. However, if the settlement takes its original effect and takes effect, the scope of the creation effect of the settlement shall be limited to the matters on which the parties have agreed to yield and confirm the mutual concession, and it shall not take effect in relation to matters for which the parties have not claimed and which have been understood as a premise of the settlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da17319, Apr. 27

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

① Some of the buyers of the instant commercial buildings, including the Defendant, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the reconstruction association, an agent for a reconstruction project, seeking the return of the sale price due to the invalidity, cancellation, or cancellation, etc. of the sales contract in the first claim under the Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap17982, 2010 Gohap32196 (Merger), 2010 Gohap37054 (Merger), 2010 Gohap 2010 Gohap2010 Gohap105827 (Joinder), and was sentenced to a dismissal ruling on June 13, 2013.

② As to the above judgment, the Defendant et al. appealed in Seoul High Court 2013Na56480, 2013Na56497 (Joint), 2013Na56503 (Joint), 2013Na56503 (Joint), 2013Na56510 (Joint), and 2013Na56527 (Joint). The decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized on February 6, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of recommending reconciliation in this case"). Paragraph (1) of the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case includes the content that "the buyers, reconstruction associations, and the Plaintiff withdraw all civil and criminal lawsuits filed between themselves immediately after the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case becomes final and conclusive, and that they do not bring any dispute, such as mutual additional litigation, compulsory execution, criminal complaint, etc., with respect to the lease contract in this case."

3. Based on the aforementioned factual basis, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that, as Article 1(1) of the decision to recommend reconciliation of this case was an agreement to institute a lawsuit in this case and its validity is not effective, the lawsuit in this case was brought in in violation of the non-committee agreement, and thus, deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, and dismissed the lawsuit

4. However, examining the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the Supreme Court precedents as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept the decision of the court below as above, on the premise that the sales contract between the plaintiff and the buyer remains effective, Paragraph (1) of the recommendation for settlement of this case is based on the purport that it will not bring a lawsuit, etc. disputing the validity of the sales contract by causing multiple disputes in the future, and it cannot be interpreted as prohibiting the claim for the performance of the obligation based on the main text of the sales contract, such as the

① The cause of the previous lawsuit was to seek the return of the sale price or to seek confirmation of the absence of the obligation to pay rent due to the invalidation, cancellation, or cancellation of the sale contract by multiple buyers including the Defendant. The legal relationship on the payment of the balance of the sale price or the settlement of the sale price, which the Plaintiff seeks due to the instant lawsuit, was not subject to dispute in the previous lawsuit. Furthermore, the legal relationship on the payment of the balance of the sale price or the settlement of the sale price is not specified in the matters recommending settlement in the instant case, and there is no additional entry in the

② On December 3, 2013, when the previous lawsuit was pending, the E-building Lot Co., Ltd. Council, the representative body of the Plaintiff, the reconstruction association, and the buyer, agreed to settle disputes between each other at once and activate commercial buildings. Article 1 of the above Agreement provides that “The purpose of this Agreement is to rationally adjust the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the buyer in order to maximize mutual interests by operating commercial buildings in respect of mutual rights.” This is premised on the validity of the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the buyer, and the decision of recommending settlement of this case is based on the above agreement.

③ Paragraph (2) of the decision to recommend reconciliation of this case provides for the distribution ratio of commercial revenue, obligation to cooperate for the development of commercial buildings, obligation to cooperate during the period of public room, period of lease, Paragraph (3) of this case, method of sharing management expenses, Paragraph (5) of this case's building development committee, Paragraph (6) of this case's application of the decision to recommend settlement to the buyers who withdraw a criminal complaint, Paragraph (7) of this case's extension of the application of the decision to recommend settlement to the buyers, and Paragraph (8) of this case's provision on the remainder of claims by buyers, and Paragraph (8) of this case's decision to recommend settlement

① At the time of the decision to recommend the settlement of this case, the unpaid sale price of the buyers was determined from KRW 00 to KRW 200 million, and the Plaintiff was sentenced to a favorable judgment against the buyers in the first instance trial and related litigation in the previous lawsuit. In such a situation, the Plaintiff did not have any reasonable reason to comprehensively waive the remainder of the sale price claims against the buyers, and this was difficult to accept not only in relation to the buyer who has already paid the remainder, but also to the equity between the unpaid buyer and the unpaid buyer.

5. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant lawsuit was unlawful solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the determination contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

6. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Note Justice Kim Chang-soo

Justices Park Sang-ok