1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on May 23, 2017 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

2. Expenses incurred after the completion of a lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, but filed an application for mediation (this court 2015 s.9517) but later submitted the instant lawsuit to the instant court due to failure to mediate. The fact that the written withdrawal of the lawsuit accompanied by a certificate of seal impression was clearly recorded in the record.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit was concluded on May 23, 2017 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

2. As to this, the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not have the capacity to perform dementia diseases at the time of withdrawal of the lawsuit, or the Plaintiff’s legal representative present and expressed at the date of fourth pleading of April 11, 2017 at the date of pleading by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s legal representative present at the date of pleading of April 11, 2017, and without knowing that the inside and outside of this court was distorted, and who is the Plaintiff’s legal representative. I think the instant building is in the name of the interior, and if the inside and outside of the building were dead, it would have divided into three types. The Plaintiff’s legal representative stated to the effect that how to dispose of the instant building was forgotten, did not separately think of how to dispose of

Since it is also inconsistent with this, the withdrawal of the lawsuit is invalid.

Therefore, the plaintiff's action of withdrawal of the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff and extinguishing the continuation of the lawsuit is the litigation for the plaintiff's court. Unlike the general private act, it is inevitable to determine the validity of the lawsuit based on its indication rather than the intention of internal deliberation. Thus, even if the withdrawal of the lawsuit is contrary to the intention of internal deliberation, it shall not be deemed null and void.

In addition, the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 17, 19, and 20 alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is an incompetent person at the time of withdrawal of the lawsuit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the assertion that the withdrawal of the suit in this case is null and void.

3. If so, it is so decided as per Disposition by the declaration of termination of the lawsuit in this case.