The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the petitioner (quasi-Appellant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the applicant’s assertion that the instant mediation decision was not subject to quasi-examination because the instant mediation decision was invalid because it was served to a person who is not entitled to receive the service, and the said decision was not finalized.

Although the lower court’s explanation on this part of its reasoning is somewhat inappropriate, it did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding service as seen in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that G was deprived of the opportunity for the respondent to participate in the conciliation procedure from the commencement of the conciliation procedure until the completion of the protocol of decision on dispute settlement of the instant case became final and conclusive, by participating in the conciliation procedure by G G who was not authorized to act as the respondent (quasi-Review Plaintiff) in the conciliation procedure.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding defects in power of representation or by erroneously recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, etc.

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court determined that it is unnecessary to separately determine whether the application for conciliation is justifiable in revoking the application on the grounds that there are grounds for review similar to the written decision of dispute settlement of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting judgment on the assertion of Article 460 of the Civil Procedure Act or by misunderstanding the relevant legal principles.