Effect of judicial compromise in which a third party is a party;

A third party who is not a party to a lawsuit may become a party to a judicial compromise, and in such cases, the effect of such compromise shall extend to a third party according to the contents stated in the protocol of compromise.

Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da2278 Delivered on December 22, 1981

Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellant No. 10

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na566 delivered on July 27, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below is reasonable. The plaintiff's claim that the above building was constructed by the plaintiff, and that the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant's title to the above building was sought on November 17, 1981 due to the title trust. The plaintiff's claim that the above building was completed and the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and there was a dispute as to the ownership transfer of each of the above buildings between the plaintiff and the defendant on October 31, 1981, that the above building No. 101 was leased to the non-party and used by the above non-party on the ground that the above building was owned by the non-party 1 and the above non-party's claim for the provisional registration No. 2 was cancelled (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da30102 delivered on December 12, 1981). The plaintiff's claim that the above non-party was entered in the provisional registration No. 1 and the non-party 2's claim for ownership transfer transfer registration against the non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's claim for ownership transfer registration.

2. However, according to the evidence No. 3 (Settlement Protocol) cited in the court below's fact-finding, it is clear that the parties to the original adjudication were the non-party and the defendant, and the plaintiff of this case is not the parties to the settlement. It is also clear that the plaintiff of this case is not the parties to the settlement. In this case, the effect of the settlement shall also be a third party, and as long as the plaintiff is not a party to the original adjudication, it shall not affect the plaintiff unless the plaintiff is a party to the settlement at the time of the original adjudication. Therefore, there is no reason to be bound by the contents of the settlement at the time of the original adjudication. Therefore, the court below's decision that judged that the settlement between the defendant of this case and the non-party, and the plaintiff of this case is made between the plaintiff of this case and the plaintiff of this case and that the plaintiff's assertion is contrary to the purport of the settlement at the time of the original adjudication, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or the scope of the parties affected the conclusion of the judgment. This constitutes a violation of law.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju