손해배상(자)
1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of quasi-examination are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff and quasi-examination Plaintiff).
1.The following facts do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in the record of a ruling of recommending reconciliation subject to quasi-re-deliberation:
The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the conciliation against the Defendant to pay damages of KRW 1,70,200,000 to the Defendant under the Jeonju District Court 2013Ma1815, but was implemented as a litigation proceeding No. 2014Kadan11057, and the said court rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff, such as the purport of the claim.
B. As to this, the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal (the Jeonju District Court 2015Na1027), and the appellate court filed a counterclaim (the same court 2015Na3269) seeking a judgment identical to the purport of the counterclaim. On November 14, 2016, the above court rendered a decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”) with the following contents, and on November 16, 2016, the original copy of the said decision was served on L law firm as well as the Defendant’s attorney M&, public-service advocate N,O, P, and Q respectively.
1. On February 19, 2013: (a) around 15:05, it is confirmed that there is no obligation of the Plaintiff to pay damages to the Defendant with respect to a traffic accident in which B vehicles drive C truck at the intersection in front of the head office of the Jeonbuk Bank.
2. The defendant fully withdraws the counterclaim of this case, and the plaintiff consents to the withdrawal of the counterclaim of this case.
3. The plaintiff and the defendant do not raise any civil or criminal objection against each other with respect to the traffic accidents described in paragraph (1).
4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by each party in combination with the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise an objection within two weeks from the date of receipt of the instant decision of recommending reconciliation, and the said decision became final and conclusive on December 3, 2016.
2. Whether any ground for quasi-examination exists;
A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant suffered serious pains due to traffic accidents as stated in the purport of the claim in the principal lawsuit, and the health of the Defendant aggravated, which led to which the Defendant failed to work properly. The Defendant’s decision of recommending reconciliation in the instant case is a lost income and a residual disability.