Whether a request for specification of property relationship may be made by a decision in lieu of a judicial compromise (affirmative)

Article 524-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for a final and conclusive judgment, the protocol under Article 206, the payment order or the civil conciliation protocol under Article 206, but the above provisions are not necessarily limited to the title of debt which can make a request for specification of property relations. Thus, a decision in lieu of conciliation made by a conciliation judge under Articles 30 and 32 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise if there is no objection or an objection is withdrawn or dismissed as provided in Article 34(4) of the same Act, and therefore there is no reasonable ground to treat it separately from the civil conciliation protocol under Article 28 of the same Act. Accordingly, it shall be interpreted that a request for specification of property relations can be made under Article 524-2 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 524-2 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 28, 30, 32, and 34(4) of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 97Ra1665 dated April 24, 1998

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 524-2 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for a final and conclusive judgment, the protocol under Article 206, the payment order, or the civil conciliation protocol under Article 206 as a title of debt for which a creditor may make a request for specification of a debtor's property relationship. However, the above provisions are not necessarily limited to the title of debt for which a request for specification of a property relationship may be made. Thus, a decision in lieu of conciliation made by a conciliation judge under Articles 30 and 32 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise in the event there is no objection under Article 34(4) of the same Act, or where an objection is withdrawn or dismissed, and it shall be deemed that there is no reasonable ground to treat it separately from the civil conciliation protocol under Article 28 of the same Act. Accordingly, it shall be interpreted that a request for specification of a property relationship can be made under

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the Re-Appellant's dismissal of the application of this case under the premise that the Re-Appellant's dismissal of the application of this case cannot be made in lieu of the conciliation. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application for specification of property relations or the decision in lieu of conciliation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)