본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2014.05.21 2013재가단28

1. The plaintiff (quasi-Appellant)'s quasi-Appellants are dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination are assessed against the plaintiff (quasi-examination plaintiff).


1. Around February 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking damages equivalent to the purport of the claim under the court 2012Da1651, and on August 28, 2012, the following protocol of mediation (hereinafter “the quasi-examination protocol”) was prepared on August 28, 2012.

1. The Defendant shall pay 4 million won to the Plaintiff by September 10, 2012.

Provided, That where the above amount is not paid by the above payment date, damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 25% per annum from the date following the payment date to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant shall not raise any civil or criminal objection or claim against the other party in connection with the cause of the claim in this case, the privacy of the original defendant, etc.

3. The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

4. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each person;

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the quasi-examination protocol of this case should be revoked on the ground that there are grounds for quasi-examination under Article 451(1)8 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In this case, a civil or criminal judgment or other trial or administrative disposition which forms the basis of the protocol of quasi-examination of this case was changed according to a different judgment or administrative disposition.

No evidence exists to deem that a determination was omitted on a material fact that may affect the instant quasi-examination protocol (the grounds under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act) or that there was no evidence to deem such determination (the grounds under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act).

In addition, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff claims another quasi-examination.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a ground for quasi-examination as asserted by the Plaintiff in the instant quasi-examination protocol.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's request for retrial of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.