1. The respondent's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence evidence No. 1 of the protocol of quasi-deliberation, the applicant (a quasi-Appellant; hereinafter referred to as the "quasi-Appellant") filed an application for settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as "reconciliation prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case") against the respondent (a quasi-Appellant; hereinafter referred to as the "quasi-Appellant"). As to the case in this case, the quasi-Appellant and the attorney-at-law on March 30, 198, who was the date of the settlement, attended by the quasi-Appellant and the quasi-Appellant and the attorney-at-law of the plaintiff, who was the representative of the quasi-Appellant, were present on the same day, and a compromise as the statement in the purport of the claim of the conciliation in this case, has been established, and on the same day, it

2. The quasi-Review Plaintiff’s assertion concerning quasi-Review Plaintiff is the deceased C’s heir, and as if the quasi-Review Defendant had purchased the forest land of this case from C, submitted a forged application for the conciliation under the name of C prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and appointed a lawyer D, a representative of C under the instant protocol of conciliation, and prepared the instant protocol of conciliation. As such, the instant protocol of conciliation was asserted that there was a ground for retrial falling under Article 451(1)3 (when there was a defect in granting authority necessary for conducting procedural acts) and Article 451(1)5 (in case where documents and other articles, which were the evidence of the judgment, were forged or altered) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the quasi-

3. Thus, the quasi-Appellant's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.