1. The part against Defendant A in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. Lawsuits between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A shall be January 11, 2019.

1. The partial court against Defendant A may, ex officio, make a ruling of recommending reconciliation for the fair settlement of the case within the extent not contrary to the purport of the claim, by taking into account the parties’ interests and all other circumstances with respect to the case in which the lawsuit is pending, and in principle, the parties may raise an objection against such ruling within 2 weeks from the date of receiving the original copy of the written decision, and an objection shall be filed by submitting a written

(See Articles 225, 226, and 227 of the Civil Procedure Act). If no objection is raised within the foregoing period, the decision to recommend a compromise shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise, and if an objection is legally raised, the lawsuit shall return to the state before the decision to recommend a compromise is made.

(1) According to the records of this case (see Articles 231 and 232 of the Civil Procedure Act). (1) On December 26, 2018, the first instance court rendered a ruling of recommending compromise that “Defendant B shall pay KRW 16,934,306 to the Plaintiff until January 31, 2019. If Defendant B delays the payment of the said amount, the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date following the above payment date to the date of full payment.” The Plaintiff waives the claims against the Plaintiff and the remainder of the claims against the Defendant B. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against each party.” (2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are served the original copy of the said ruling of recommending compromise on December 27, 2018, and (3) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were not served with the original copy of the said ruling on December 28, 2018, and only the above Defendant did not present the original copy of the said ruling to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff within the Jeju 2191.

According to the above facts, the decision of recommending reconciliation between the plaintiff and the defendant B is a legitimate objection of the defendant B.