The case holding that a reconciliation contract was concluded between the employees of the Korea Construction Association, Busan Metropolitan City Council, Metropolitan City Council, and the above Association and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, which were dismissed by the purification plan of the National Emergency Countermeasure Committee in 1980.

When the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. of Public Officials on Maritime Affairs was enacted in 1980, the said Association shall determine the compensation to be paid to the employees of the Korea Construction Association, Busan Metropolitan City and Do Council in accordance with the purification plan of the National Committee on Emergency Countermeasures on National Security in 1980 and notify them that they apply for the compensation. The said notification shall be made in accordance with the administrative guidance of the Minister of Construction and Transportation. The said Metropolitan City and Do Council, upon paying the above compensation, made an expression of intent to make a settlement contract to settle legal disputes between them due to the dismissal in 1980, and if the above dismissed applied for the compensation, it shall be deemed that the settlement contract of the above contents was established among them.

Article 731 of the Civil Act and Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. of Public Officials in 1980

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea Construction Association and one other

1. The Defendants shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 19,059,120, KRW 44,419,80, and an amount of KRW 25 percent per annum from January 13, 1991 to the date of full payment.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the testimony of Lee Gyeong-hee, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 entered the Busan Metropolitan Council on Nov. 1, 1969 and the director of the accounting division entered the Busan Metropolitan Council on Jun. 15, 1959 and was dismissed by the purification plan for public officials of the National Security Committee and employees of the government agencies on Aug. 2, 1980. However, since the above facts were promulgated on March 29, 1989 by the Busan Metropolitan Council, the Minister of Construction and Transportation had the plaintiffs informed the above facts to the Busan Metropolitan Council on the compensation money No. 1 to the Busan Metropolitan City Council on the compensation money No. 90, the plaintiff No. 1 and the public officials of the Busan Metropolitan Government on the compensation money No. 1980, which had been notified to the public officials of the Association No. 1980.

The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' claims are not reasonable because they are not eligible for compensation under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. of Public Officials in 1980. However, the plaintiffs' claims are based on the above reconciliation contract, and they are not directly based on the above special measures. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants

The defendant Busan Metropolitan City Council stated that it is not possible to accept the plaintiffs' request because it is different from the present members of the defendant Busan Metropolitan City Council at the time of 1980, but the defendant should be a kind of unincorporated association. Therefore, unless there are other circumstances, it does not lose the identity of an association since some of its members have changed. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, according to the terms of each of the above reconciliation agreements, the defendants are obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 the amount of 19,059,120 won, the amount of 44,419,800 won to the plaintiff 2, and damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 13, 1991 to the full payment date, which is clear that the copy of the complaint of this case claimed by the plaintiffs against the plaintiff 2 is the next day after the last delivery to the defendants. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims for the performance of this case are justified and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Sho-Seng (Presiding Judge)