1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Ex officio determination on the requirements for litigation;

A. Whether a lawsuit brought against the non-committee agreement is legitimate or not, 1) the parties to the lawsuit have agreed not to file a lawsuit even if there is a dispute over a specific right or legal relationship (hereinafter “non-committee agreement”).

(2) In a case where an action is brought in violation of the principle of good faith that there is no benefit in the protection of rights and that a party and a person involved in the litigation shall perform the lawsuit in good faith (Article 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), the court may ex officio determine the legitimacy of the action in a case where the action is brought in violation of the agreement on the lawsuit. (2) The agreement on the lawsuit is valid in a case where the party involved in the lawsuit is brought in violation of the agreement on the lawsuit, which gives rise to a serious legal effect, such as the waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution, and it shall be effective in a case where there is any disagreement on the validity or scope thereof.

Therefore, in order to determine the illegality of a lawsuit on the grounds that the parties violate the dispositive agreement ex officio, even though the parties did not dispute the validity or scope of the dispositive agreement, it is necessary to give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions regarding such legal point of view, and to sufficiently examine the motive and circumstance leading up to the dispositive agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc.

The court's rejection of a lawsuit by recognizing ex officio an agreement on the action without such an agreement on the action is a judgment other than expected, which imposes an indemnity on one of the parties, and it does not properly conduct necessary hearings in violation of the duty of explanation.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Da80449 Decided November 28, 2013). B.

Judgment

1...