The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case by the court of the first instance is as stated in the part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance, except where the court determines the plaintiff’s assertion in this case as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant protocol is made by deception of the Defendant, and even if not, the instant protocol does not contain remuneration expenses, etc. incurred by the Plaintiff to maintain the value of the instant real estate. Therefore, based on the instant protocol, it is unreasonable to distribute to the Defendant the entire amount equivalent to 1/2 of the remainder of the auction proceeds of the instant real estate, based on the instant protocol of mediation.

However, mediation is established upon entry of the matters agreed between the parties in the protocol, and the mediation protocol has the same effect as the final judgment, such as the protocol of judicial conciliation, and has the same effect as the protocol of judicial conciliation, so if the mediation is concluded between the parties, the rights and obligations relationship based on the previous legal relationship is extinguished, and a new

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32814, 32821 Decided June 29, 2006). A conciliation is established by entering the matters agreed upon between the parties in the protocol, and the conciliation protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, such as a protocol of judicial conciliation.

Therefore, since res judicata takes place between the parties, unless there are grounds such as the invalidity of a final and conclusive judgment, even if the contents are in violation of compulsory law, it is merely a defect in the mediation, and thus, it is a separate issue for remedy by quasi-judicial procedure, and it cannot be asserted that the mediation protocol is null and void.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104960, 104977, Mar. 27, 2014). In this case, the instant case is examined.