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

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

1. On September 21, 2005, the case subject to quasi-deliberation filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant, the fact that the Plaintiff A, the legal representative of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant appeared on the date of conciliation and the conciliation of the same content as that of the attached Table 3 conciliation is established, and that the conciliation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was prepared is obvious in the record.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not appear on the date of conciliation on September 21, 2005, but recorded as if the defendant appeared, and as if conciliation was established as to the contents that are completely different from the defendant's intent, the conciliation protocol of this case is prepared.

In addition, around 2006, D and G, the spouse of the defendant, filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs in Gwangju District Court Decision 2006Gapo24269, which sought the return of the lease deposit, and rendered a favorable judgment on June 26, 2007, and became final and conclusive.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)3, 6, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant protocol of mediation.

B. Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (if there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority necessary to conduct procedural acts by a representative), the defendant asserts that there was no fact that he was present on the date of conciliation on September 21, 2005. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the conciliation protocol of this case was prepared in falsity even though the defendant did not have present on the date of conciliation, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the conciliation protocol of this case was prepared (the facts that the defendant appeared on the date of conciliation and completed conciliation as shown above are the same as the above), and the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit without further review.

(c) It is important to affect the judgment under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the document or other article used as evidence of the judgment has been forged or altered) and subparagraph 9 of the same Article.