사해행위취소
1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on August 9, 2019 upon the conclusion of mediation.
2. The Plaintiff’s litigation costs after the completion of the lawsuit.
1.The following facts in fact of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court, in the records:
On August 9, 2019, this Court was present at the date of pleading, and on the date of conciliation, and the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff’s agent and the Defendant, and the following.
1. The plaintiff waives his claim.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
B. The specific progress of the date for pleading and the date for conciliation on August 9, 2019 are as indicated in attached Table 2 “the progress of the conciliation date”.
C. On August 27, 2019, after the mediation was completed, the Plaintiff’s agent applied for the designation of the date when the mediation cannot be deemed effective because it did not consent to the establishment of mediation.
2. The plaintiff's agent's assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s agent did not consent to the establishment of mediation on August 9, 2019.
B. The plaintiff's agent is not authorized to consent to the establishment of mediation without internal approval from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund.
C. On August 9, 2019, immediately after the establishment of mediation, the Plaintiff’s agent made a telephone call with the person in charge of the Plaintiff Credit Guarantee Fund and expressed his/her intention to be delivered to the decision of recommending reconciliation instead of returning to the court.
3. Determination
A. The relevant legal principles can be contested only by quasi-adjudication unless there are grounds for the invalidation of a final and conclusive judgment. Thus, in a case where one of the parties claims the invalidation of a written protocol, and files an application for designation of a date, the court must make a declaration of the completion of a lawsuit by its judgment if the grounds for invalidation are not recognized by examining the date to determine the existence of the grounds for invalidation.
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da58668 delivered on March 9, 2001).
Judgment
1. In light of the above legal principles, according to the above facts, on August 9, 2019, the full bench clearly presented the conciliation clause, explained its legal meaning, verified the intent of the Plaintiff’s agent and the Defendant’s explicit and clear consent, and declared the formation of the conciliation agreement as above.