1. Quasi-Review Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the quasi-Appellant.

quasi-examinations, purport of the claim, and

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part added as stated in the following Paragraph 2, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The addition;

A. A. The quasi-Review Defendant asserted by the quasi-Review Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserts that the quasi-Review Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit for quasi-Review on the ground that, at the time of the preparation of the instant protocol, the Plaintiff did not know any defect in granting the authority of legal representation, powers of attorney, or authority necessary to conduct procedural acts, but did not assert any defect in granting the said authority and became final and conclusive. As such, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff did not make any assertion despite being aware of the proviso of Article 461 and the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. According to the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the legality of a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation, a lawsuit for retrial may not be instituted when a party asserts, or does not know, the grounds for retrial by an appeal. Here, “when the party does not know,” the term “when he knows,” includes not only the cases where the party did not assert, but also the cases where the judgment became final and conclusive by failing to file an appeal, despite the knowledge of the existence of the grounds for retrial.

This provision provides the supplementary nature of retrial that a lawsuit for retrial cannot be brought against a final judgment which became final and conclusive, when the parties have asserted the grounds for retrial by an appeal or did not know it.

However, the conciliation protocol of this case has the effect of a judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act (Article 16-3(5) of the Labor Relations Commission Act), and except when there are grounds such as the grounds for invalidation of a final and conclusive judgment.