1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Final decision subject to quasi-examination;

A. On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the District Court 2016Kadan13468 and other claims (money). During the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff was transferred to the conciliation proceedings under 2016Mo30566, and the decision was rendered as a substitute for conciliation as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as "the decision subject to quasi-deliberation of this case") 1. The defendant shall guarantee the right to housing in the room located in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, the plaintiff is currently residing in the name of the tenant in the name of the tenant in the amount of KRW 30,00,000.

2. The Defendant does not voluntarily terminate the above studio rental contract without agreement with the Plaintiff. If the lessor terminates the lease contract, the Defendant shall provide the Plaintiff with the residence amounting to KRW 30,000,000 on a deposit basis by the date of the Plaintiff’s death or disease, etc., which has no independent livelihood due to the Plaintiff’s death or illness, and is permanently admitted to the medical care center and other third parties on a permanent basis (the date arriving first).

(The name of the lessee shall be the defendant and the right to the deposit on the deposit basis shall be the defendant.

B. The decision subject to quasi-examination of this case was served on the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the decision became final and conclusive as it did not have any objection within the lawful period of objection.

[Grounds for recognition] Clear facts on records, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there was a ground for retrial falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the decision subject to quasi-examination of this case did not include any limitation on the lessee of national rental housing (no person other than the Plaintiff may become the lessee) and any trend of increase in the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis. Therefore, there was a ground for retrial falling under “when the decision on important matters that may affect the judgment was omitted.”

If an objection is not raised within the prescribed period because the protocol of decision substituting conciliation was served on the party, or an objection is withdrawn or dismissed, the same effect as a judicial compromise occurs (Article 34(4) of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act).