A. Regarding the decision of provisional seizure of claims against Busan District Court 2004Kadan24657 where the defendant was the debtor, the defendant applied for the order of lawsuit as Busan District Court 2004Kaga3351. On August 30, 2004, the court accepted the defendant's application for order of lawsuit on August 30, 2004.

B. On September 9, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming the amount stated in the claim against the Defendant (Supplementary District Court 2004Da110256).

C. The court proceeded with the mediation date on September 14, 2005, but only the plaintiffs were present and the defendant and the defendant's attorney did not attend the mediation.

On the same day, the court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation (the decision of this case is subject to quasi-examination; hereinafter “the decision of this case”) with the purport that “the plaintiff shall withdraw an application for provisional seizure against claim from the Ulsan District Court 2004Kadan11384. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs KRW 23 million at the same time as the above provisional seizure application is withdrawn. The plaintiffs shall waive the remaining claims. The costs of litigation and conciliation shall be borne by each party.”

E. The instant decision was delivered to the Plaintiff B and the Defendant’s agent on September 21, 2005, and to the Plaintiff on September 26, 2015, respectively, and the instant decision was finalized on October 11, 2005 as it was, with the limit of the filing period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether grounds for quasi-examination exist;

A. Plaintiff A’s assertion 1) While Plaintiff B, a partner for a retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, knew of Plaintiff A’s genuine address (U.S. Dongdong-gu C), Plaintiff A referred to as Plaintiff A and filed a case subject to a review by stating the false address as D. Thus, this constitutes a case for personal appearance and constitutes a tort for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, depending on the case where there is a defect in the power of attorney, as it falls under a case for personal appearance, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(