1. The litigation for quasi-examination of this case by the defendant (quasi-examination plaintiff) shall be dismissed;

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be assessed against.

1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties or are clear by the records:

On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of indemnity, etc., such as the statement in the purport of the claim, under the court 2014da11720.

B. On May 26, 2014, this Court referred the instant case to conciliation by the same court No. 2014 money5822.

On July 9, 2014, the record of quasi-examination of this case was prepared with the content that the mediation of the following was concluded in the attendance of the representative of the Plaintiff association and the Defendant at the meeting of the Plaintiff association and the Defendant.

(1) The Defendant shall pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff until July 31, 2014.

However, if the defendant does not pay the above amount by the above payment date, the unpaid amount shall be paid by adding 20% interest per annum from the day following the payment date to the day of full payment.

Doshe may immediately withdraw an objection against the market price appraisal of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, owned by the defendant filed by the Central Land Tribunal.

Fidelity Plaintiff waives the remainder of the claim.

x) The cost of the lawsuit and the cost of the conciliation shall be borne by each person.

C. The original copy of the instant conciliation protocol was sent to the Defendant on July 18, 2014, and to the Plaintiff on July 17, 2014, respectively, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation on July 22, 2014.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment were made to respond to the conciliation as above, because he did not have an obligation to the plaintiff to the extent of 30,000,000 won, and he did not have an obligation to the plaintiff. Thus, the quasi-examination protocol of this case constitutes a quasi-examination ground under Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the above ground does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the lawsuit

3. The lawsuit of quasi-examination of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful.