1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The cost of the participation by the Defendant (quasi-Appellant) shall be included.

1. The following facts in preparation of the protocol subject to quasi-examination shall be significant or obvious to the court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the cancellation of ownership registration under Incheon District Court 2014Kadan44818, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 3, 2015.

B. In response to the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff appealed as the Incheon District Court 2015Na7664, and the appellate court referred the instant case to the conciliation (2015 s.23892), and on January 27, 2016, the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Intervenor B (hereinafter “B”), the Intervenor B (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”), the E, and the Defendant (Quasi-Defendant) Supplementary Intervenor D, and the quasi-Examination Protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation Protocol”).

2. Although B was appointed as a conciliation agent with respect to the instant case, which is the cause of quasi-appeal, B adjusted differently from the content that the Plaintiff sought on the date of conciliation, and the instant conciliation becomes null and void as there is no provision under which the Defendant could enforce the conciliation if the Defendant did not implement the conciliation. This constitutes “when there is any defect in granting the authority of legal representation, powers of attorney, or authority necessary to conduct the litigation.”

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant protocol of mediation.

3. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion of determination, the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Plaintiff granted the power of representation to B.

4. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the lawsuit for quasi-examination of this case is unlawful.