1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a protocol of conciliation subject to quasi-deliberation against the Defendant for the payment order of lease deposit (Seoul District Court 2017Kadan2147000). On September 27, 2017, the protocol of conciliation (hereinafter referred to as “instant protocol of conciliation”) was concluded and the protocol of conciliation (hereinafter referred to as “instant protocol of conciliation”) was prepared, when both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were present at the date of first pleading of the instant case on September 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] In the instant protocol of conciliation, the Plaintiff asserts that there was a ground for retrial falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that there was no dispute, an obvious fact in the record, and the existence of grounds for quasi-examination as to the purport of the entire pleadings, and that there was no ground for retrial falling under “when there was omission of judgment on important matters affecting the judgment,” on the ground that the part concerning the burden of litigation costs and the Defendant did not return lease deposit at the same time.

A lawsuit for a retrial or retrial shall be permitted only when there are grounds prescribed by Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, in a case where the ground alleged by the plaintiff for retrial does not constitute it, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful

(See Supreme Court Decisions 82Da14 delivered on September 14, 1982, and 96Da31307 delivered on October 25, 1996, etc.). Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when any judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment is omitted” as grounds for retrial. This provision stipulates that any defects that may arise in relation to the statement in the grounds for retrial among the grounds for retrial against a final judgment, which are final and conclusive, may be anticipated, and thus, it does not constitute a decision of recommending reconciliation that does not separately state the reasons for the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27167 delivered on February 23, 2006). This provision also applies to judicial reconciliation.

The grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act asserted by the Plaintiff are the protocol of conciliation.