1. The quasi-examination claim of this case by the quasi-examination applicant is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

The Plaintiff asserts that since October 26, 1970, the forest land of this case had been registered as a preservation of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name, but the Defendant, by abusing the situation in which the Plaintiff had resided in Busan, prepared the forest land of this case in a false manner as if it were purchased from the Plaintiff, and that the protocol of this case was prepared on the premise that the Plaintiff granted the right of representation to the attorney E even though the Plaintiff had not granted the right of representation regarding the preparation of the protocol of this case, the protocol of this case should be revoked on the ground that there was a ground for retrial for “cases where there was a defect in the power of representation” under Article 4

However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff granted the power of representation to attorney E with respect to the preparation of the protocol of conciliation in this case only by the descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 3 and the testimony of witness E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's petition for quasi-deliberation of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.