The Seoul High Court 2008Na51139, 51146 (Consolidated), 51153 (Consolidated), and 5160 (Consolidated) cases subject to quasi-deliberation of this case.

1. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap67482, 86070, 81266, 75254) against the defendants, etc. as stated in the purport of the claim. The court of first instance accepted all the remaining claims against the defendants except for the part against the defendant B. The plaintiff and the defendants filed an appeal against the whole or part of each lost part of the judgment against the plaintiff and the defendants. On March 20, 2009, the court of first instance rendered an appeal against the plaintiff and the defendants, and on March 20, 2009, the fact that the mediation (hereinafter "instant mediation") was established between the plaintiff, the defendants, and the intervenor, is obvious or obvious in the records.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and its judgment [Plaintiff’s assertion] was concluded by threatening Defendant B to report the Plaintiff’s tax evasion to the National Tax Service after the closing of argument in the previous appellate trial. Accordingly, Defendant B became final and conclusive as a result of public conflict, etc.

This constitutes a ground for quasi-examination, and thus, the conciliation of this case must be revoked.

[Judgment] According to the evidence Nos. 35, 36 and evidence Nos. 37-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence Nos. 37, Defendant B, by threatening the Plaintiff to report to the National Tax Service in relation to the tax evasion, and by inducing the Plaintiff to waive the claim for unjust enrichment claim 245,000,000 won in the first instance trial, and its delay damages, and withdrawal of the claim for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer registration against TT and AU forest land, etc. in the Namyang-si District Court 2008Gahap68789, the Seoul Central District Court 2008Dahap68789, and at the same time, to comply with the conciliation of this case, it is acknowledged that the judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive (Seoul Central District Court 2010Da482).

According to the above facts, the conciliation subject to quasi-examination is led to the act of another person who is subject to the punishment of quasi-examination inducement.