(영문) 대법원 2017.6.19.선고 2017다220881 판결

1. Where an objection is not raised within the time limit for filing an objection against a decision substituting conciliation, such decision has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (see Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act), and since it has a productive effect, the relationship of rights and duties based on the legal relationship in which a previous dispute exists between the parties is extinguished, and a new relationship of rights and duties based on the content of such decision is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32814, 32821, Jun. 6

Meanwhile, the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment recognized as a substitute for a final and conclusive conciliation is limited to a judgment on the existence of a legal relationship which is a subject matter of a lawsuit. Therefore, in a case where a decision in lieu of a final and conclusive conciliation becomes final and conclusive during a litigation proceeding, barring any special circumstance, it should be recognized that the legal relationship is specified in a decision or additional entry is made after the indication of a claim in the decision, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da78732, Apr. 26, 2007; 2014Da7825, Feb. 26, 2015). Furthermore, a decision in lieu of conciliation should be deemed to have more strict effect on a subject matter of a lawsuit than the legal relationship that is a subject matter of a lawsuit, in consideration of the parties’ interest and all other circumstances at his/her own discretion, and thus, a decision is made for the fair resolution of the case to the extent not contrary to the purport of the application or purport (see Article 30).

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. C reconstruction project cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "cooperative of this case") is a project implementer that newly constructs G stores (hereinafter referred to as the "instant commercial building") at the F 4,144.3m in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, which is the site of the Gu D market and E market. On September 12, 2002, the plaintiff entered into a comprehensive implementation contract with the association of this case to acquire the right of lease of the above commercial building and sell it in lots. B. On July 10, 2008, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the defendants on the 1st fiveth unit (3.9m of exclusive use area, 13.2m of total sale area) of the commercial building (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract of this case"), and the defendants paid the sale price of this case to the plaintiff and the 20th unit (including value-added tax) at the 20th unit of the sale price of this case to the 30th unit of the sale price of this case.

E. On January 2, 2014, the said court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation between 329 and 353 Plaintiffs of the instant case including Defendant B (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation decision”). Paragraph 1 of the instant decision on compulsory conciliation contains the content that “a decision in lieu of conciliation becomes final and conclusive, the instant decision shall withdraw all civil and criminal lawsuits filed between one another, and shall not bring any dispute, such as mutual additional litigation, compulsory execution, criminal complaint, etc. regarding the instant contract on the lease of commercial buildings.” The instant decision on compulsory conciliation became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff and the instant union and Defendant B, etc. did not object to the instant compulsory conciliation decision.

3. Examining the aforementioned factual relations and the following circumstances revealed therefrom in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Paragraph (1) of the instant decision on compulsory adjustment merely appears to the purport that the Plaintiff and the buyer do not bring a lawsuit, etc. to the effect that they would not dispute the validity of the lease sale contract by causing a dispute again in the future, on the premise that the lease contract remains in force between the Plaintiff and the buyer, and it does not mean to prevent the claim for the performance of the obligations that are good in terms

A. The grounds for the claim of the preceding lawsuit asserted that the lessee, including Defendant B, entered into the instant commercial lease contract by false or exaggerated advertisement, and sought a return of the purchase price according to the cancellation of the contract made on the grounds of deception or a claim for damages due to tort. The existence of the claim related to the payment of the balance of the purchase price under the instant lease contract or the increase or decrease in the size of the store by drawing lots was not the subject of dispute or the subject of dispute.

B. The legal relationship on the settlement of sale price or the payment of the remainder of sale price is not specified in the decision of compulsory adjustment of the instant case, and the above legal relationship is not specified additionally following the indication of the claim as above.

C. The decision of compulsory adjustment of the instant case stipulates in detail the distribution ratio of the revenues of commercial buildings and the payment of rent (Paragraph 2), the extension of the term of lease (Paragraph 3), the method of settlement and allocation of management expenses (Paragraph 4), the composition of the operating committee of the commercial building center (Paragraph 5), and the waiver of the remaining claims by the buyers, including the Defendant, etc. (Paragraph 7). They are premised on the fact that the lease contract remains effective. If the purport of the agreement was to include the contents of the Plaintiff’s waiver of the settlement of the sales price, etc. on the same premise, the content of the agreement should not be included.

D. In the preceding lawsuit, the validity of the lease sale contract was disputed, and thus, deeming that the lawsuit seeking the original performance of the lease sale contract is also included in the “additional lawsuit related to the lease sale contract” under the latter part of Paragraph (1) of the decision on compulsory adjustment of the instant case, is an excessively expanded interpretation of the purport of the decision.

Furthermore, the amount of the sales price that the buyer did not pay at the time of the instant compulsory adjustment is less than a million won but is extremely diverse from the cost to the cost of KRW 50 million. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff accepted the uniform waiver of the said price. If such purport is to be such, it cannot be said that the intent of the decision to fairly and smoothly resolve the case, such as the possibility of unfair occurrence between the buyer and the buyer and the possibility of causing another dispute, cannot be ruled out.

4. Nevertheless, the court below revoked the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the claim of this case was unlawful since the claim of this case was filed against the Defendants for the settlement of increase and decrease in the size of the area, and the lawsuit of this case was also filed against the Defendants. The court below erred by misapprehending the Supreme Court precedents as to the validity of the decision in lieu of conciliation. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

5. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.