1. The appeal by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

1. As to the instant case, including the price for goods, etc., brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, the Seoul Central District Court 2016Gahap8300 (hereinafter “former case”), the fact that the Defendant’s statement was written to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted on March 2, 2017, which was drafted on the second day for pleading opened on March 2, 2017 (hereinafter “Protocol for Quasi-Review”).

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted on March 2, 2017 only recognized the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the goods as the co-defendant B’s representative at the date of pleading of the previous lawsuit in this case, which was held on March 2,

However, the adjudication division of the above lawsuit prepared a protocol which acknowledges the plaintiff's claim for damages to the defendant's individual without going through the process of legal judgment as to which status the defendant made the above statement.

This constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment,” and thus, the quasi-examination protocol of this case should be revoked.

B. The recognition and recognition of a claim is a unilateral declaration to the court where the defendant stated the purport that he approves the whole or part of the plaintiff's claim, and there is no room for the court to intervene in the legal judgment. Thus, as to a written recognition and recognition protocol, there cannot be "when the judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment is omitted" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, it cannot be deemed as a ground for retrial against

(See Supreme Court Decision 63Da136 delivered on October 31, 1963). Therefore, the above ground alleged by the defendant cannot be a legitimate ground for quasi-examination.

3. Conclusion, the defendant's request for retrial of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.