1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. Determination 1 on the part of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and I, the father of the Plaintiff, “I have no objection” as to each of the instant collective security rights around September 13, 2007 constitutes an agreement with the father of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the institution of the instant lawsuit is unlawful contrary to the agreement with the Plaintiff. (A) Determination on the part of the Plaintiff, which is one of the passive litigation requirements, is allowed when the agreement is limited to specific legal relations within the scope of the right that the parties can dispose of, and shall be effective as to the circumstances anticipated at the time of the agreement. Determination on the validity or scope thereof should be made after reasonably interpreting the intent of the parties concerned (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da63988, Mar. 26, 199; 201Da8049, Nov. 28, 2013; 201Da9710, Oct. 16, 2013).

However, even in its language and text, it is evident that the content of the above certification was made with respect to a separate civil action against the non-party N, the plaintiff, and the defendant by the Daejeon District Court 2006Gahap11290, which sought revocation of fraudulent act, etc., and it does not relate to the plaintiff's right to claim for cancellation registration for the lawsuit in this case.

Furthermore, the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings are examined.