A. The plaintiff is the creditor of C, and the defendant is the former spouse of C, and the consultation with C on February 28, 2008 was married with C on February 28, 2008, and D is the mother of C, and the partner of C.

B. On June 26, 2009, the Plaintiff jointly and severally paid to the Defendant, C, D, and E the amount of KRW 21,00,000 per annum to the Plaintiff from June 2, 2009 to the date of full payment. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming for a loan, etc. (this Court Decision 2009Da13554, hereinafter referred to as the “instant case subject to quasi-deliberation”).

C. On September 18, 2009, the date of mediation opened on September 18, 2009 (hereinafter “the date of mediation”) attended by the Plaintiff’s attorney F and C, and C were present as the principal and the Defendant, D and E’s attorney.

On the date of the mediation, the following contents were established, and the quasi-deliberation protocol was prepared.

The defendant, C, D, and E shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 21 million won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 48% per annum from September 18, 2009 to the date of full payment.

Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the Defendants are waived, respectively.

Litigation costs and conciliation costs shall be borne by each person.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the quasi-examination claim

A. The defendant's assertion did not grant C the power of attorney for a case subject to quasi-deliberation.

Nevertheless, as the defendant's legal representative, C appeared on the mediation date of this case and prepared a quasi-deliberation protocol.

The part concerning the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the instant protocol of conciliation exists under quasi-examination as to lack of power of representation (Articles 461 and 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act). As such, the instant protocol of conciliation should be revoked.

B. The following facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted prior to the determination and the statement of the evidence No. 3 and the testimony of the witness C as a whole.