1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on November 1, 1999, and the heir was the deceased’s wife I, the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, C, and D.

B. On January 26, 2005, in the Daegu High Court Decision 2004Na2558 (the foregoing), brought by the deceased I, B, C, and D against Defendant E, F, and G, mediation was established between the deceased I and the Defendants, “In relation to the gift, inheritance, etc. of the deceased, the network I, Defendants B, C, D, and Defendant E, F, and G, will not raise any civil and criminal problems against the other party in the future.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “Indemnite Agreement,” and the protocol of mediation following the above conciliation is referred to as the “instant protocol of mediation”). [Ground of recognition] There is no dispute or significant fact in this court, entry of evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the division of inherited property. Since the Plaintiff did not consent to the agreement on the lawsuit of this case, the agreement on the lawsuit of this case, which was made without the consent of one of the co-inheritors of the deceased, is null and void.

However, the Plaintiff could not file any claim against Defendant E and other inheritors regarding the inherited property that falls under his statutory share of inherited property due to the agreement on the lawsuit in this case, and thus, sought confirmation of the invalidity of the agreement on the lawsuit in this case in order to resolve this.

3. We examine ex officio the judgment of Defendant B, C, and D on the main defense.

A. Defendant E, F, and G’s assertion is not a party to the instant secondary action agreement, and the instant secondary action agreement does not have any effect on the Plaintiff, and the instant secondary action agreement is subject to the court’s conciliation and thus does not constitute a claim for confirmation of invalidation. The effect of the secondary action agreement is related to the existence of litigation requirements that are scheduled to be tried within the pertinent lawsuit, and thus, the relevant lawsuit is tried.