Agreement on Withdrawal of Action and Benefits of Protection of Rights

Where the parties to a lawsuit have agreed to withdraw the lawsuit outside of the lawsuit, such agreement shall be effective and the plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed as there is no interest in the protection of rights.

Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 others (Attorney Lee Dong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 2 others (Attorney Yang Sang-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 81Na119 delivered on November 5, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The summary of the first point is that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withdrawal of a lawsuit, in violation of the rules of evidence, and affected the judgment, and according to the records, this case constitutes a small amount of claim as provided in Article 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the above reasons do not constitute the grounds of appeal as provided in Article 3 of the same Act, and thus,

Article 2. The summary of the judgment affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing the validity of an agreement other than the judgment on the withdrawal of a lawsuit, in conflict with the precedents of the court below, even though the agreement on the withdrawal of a lawsuit outside a trial is a contract under the Civil Procedure Act and has no effect on it. However, in cases where the parties to a lawsuit have agreed to withdraw the lawsuit outside a lawsuit, such agreement shall be valid and the plaintiff shall be interpreted as having no interest in the protection of rights (this Supreme Court Decision 65Da15 delivered on April 13, 1965). Accordingly, the court below's decision that points out the theory of lawsuit (the Compilation: Supreme Court Decision 66Da564 delivered on May 31, 196), which points out that the agreement on the withdrawal of a compulsory execution application does not violate the agreement on the withdrawal of a lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs' claim for the withdrawal of a lawsuit in a lawsuit is a disposition of compulsory execution, which is a right under the public law, and thus, it cannot be deemed reasonable.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)