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. Review of the records of this case reveals the following facts. A.

On September 13, 2017, the court of the first instance rendered a decision to recommend reconciliation between the parties (hereinafter “decision to recommend reconciliation 1”) as follows.

Decisions

1. The Defendant shall pay 37,500,000 won to the Plaintiff up to October 31, 2017. If the Defendant fails to pay the above amount by the payment date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus a delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date following the payment date to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

B. On September 15, 2017, the original copy of the decision to recommend reconciliation was served on the Plaintiff (the Defendant was not served on the Defendant). On September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff submitted a written objection to the decision to recommend reconciliation (the aforementioned written objection was not served on the Defendant) and the court of first instance issued a ruling to recommend reconciliation (hereinafter “decision to recommend reconciliation 2”) as follows again on September 18, 2017, the same date.

Decisions

1. The Defendant shall pay 17,500,000 won to the Plaintiff up to November 30, 2017. If the Defendant fails to pay the above amount by the payment date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus a delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date following the payment date to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

C. On September 18, 2017, the authentic copy of the decision of recommending reconciliation 2 was reached by the Plaintiff on September 18, 2017, and the Defendant reached the Defendant on September 20 of the same month, and either of the parties did not receive a written objection. D.

On May 16, 2018, the defendant submitted an application to the effect that the plaintiff's request is groundless. On December 17, 2018, the defendant argued that the decision of recommending compromise should be revoked because the decision of recommending compromise is invalid due to an illegal procedure.