1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on July 14, 201 by the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation on June 23, 2016.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to the instant lawsuit in which the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant for the fall of the instant lawsuit that occurred in the Dogdo Park that occurred in the Tongg-si, Tongg-si on May 27, 2013, with respect to the Defendant, “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 90 million up to July 31, 2016. If the Defendant fails to pay the said amount by the payment date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus the delayed damages calculated at a rate of 10% per annum from the day following the payment date until the day of full payment.” The Plaintiff and the Defendant were served on the Plaintiff and the Defendant on June 29 and June 24, 2016, respectively, and they did not raise any objection to the said decision.

B. On July 12, 2016, the Intervenor filed an objection against the said decision of recommending reconciliation.

2. The defendant’s assistant intervenor cannot conduct any procedural acts that cannot be conducted by the original party according to the degree of litigation when the defendant’s assistant intervenor participated. Thus, if the defendant’s assistant intervenor submitted a written objection, if the original copy of the decision recommending compromise is counted from the time when the defendant’s assistant intervenor was served, then the defendant’s assistant intervenor’s objection should also be deemed unlawful, if the period for raising an objection has already expired in relation to the defendant, who is the original party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da41966 Decided September 6, 2007). In this case, the defendant's objection against the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's objection is effective after the defendant's objection period has expired, and it is not against the defendant's procedural acts.

Therefore, the decision in lieu of the above conciliation became final and conclusive on July 14, 2016, when two weeks have elapsed from June 29, 2016, which was the last service date.

3. Thus, the lawsuit in this case becomes final and conclusive by the above decision of recommending reconciliation.