The objects and effects of judicial compromise;

The subject matter of a judicial compromise is, in principle, the subject matter of a lawsuit, and legal relations other than the subject matter of a lawsuit are not included in the subject matter of a compromise, unless the parties are especially included in the subject matter of a compromise. Thus, even if the defendant in a loan lawsuit against the plaintiff, against the plaintiff, claimed by the plaintiff the amount borrowed from the bank on the security of real estate and made a claim by deducting a part of the amount and made a repayment obligation to the plaintiff, the effect of the compromise in the lawsuit shall not naturally extend to the lawsuit of claim for indemnity

Articles 206 and 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 83Na193 delivered on December 16, 1983

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the records, the purport of the cause of the instant claim is as follows. In other words, the Plaintiff purchased the instant site and building owned by the Defendant from the Defendant, paid the price in full, and then did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, the Defendant established a mortgage and superficies worth 20 million won with the maximum debt amount and borrowed it to the Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., and was given a loan equivalent to the maximum debt amount, and the Nonparty was given a loan equivalent to the maximum debt amount by establishing a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 3 million with the maximum debt amount. Thus, the Plaintiff made a reimbursement for each of the above debt amounts to the Defendant.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that, prior to the lawsuit in this case, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking the performance of the loan (the Jeonju District Court 79Dahap323 case) on the ground that the plaintiff had a loan claim before the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant claimed 8,00,000 won which was borrowed from the above Seoul Trust Bank and the non-party as collateral with the real property in this case, and then the lawsuit in this case was consolidated at the separate claim for damages (the same court 79Gahap299 case) and at the appellate court, the settlement has been established, and the contents of the settlement have been paid 29,00,000 won to the defendant with the registration requirements of the land and building and the documents of share transfer, and if the plaintiff did not perform this, it shall be paid to the defendant as the defendant and the plaintiff shall be paid 3,305,234 won to the defendant, and the remaining claim is unlawful since it confirmed that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement in this case is unlawful.

The above determination by the court below is that, in a lawsuit claiming the return of the above loan that the defendant filed against the plaintiff, as security, the above real estate was obligated to repay 8,000,000 won borrowed from the above Seoul Trust Bank and the non-party to the plaintiff, so long as the plaintiff is deducted from the claim amount, the effect of the judicial settlement conducted in the lawsuit is naturally effective, that the above Seoul Trust Bank and the non-party shall also affect the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of this case.

2. However, the subject matter of a judicial compromise is, in principle, the subject matter of the lawsuit and the legal relations other than the subject matter of the lawsuit are not included in the subject matter of the compromise, unless the parties

In the above lawsuit where a judicial compromise has been achieved, the original adjudication is the same as the plaintiff's claim that the defendant, as the plaintiff in the above lawsuit, deducted the amount borrowed from the non-party Seoul Trust Bank and the non-party as the collateral of the loan principal against the plaintiff in this case. However, since the plaintiff's right to indemnity on the deducted amount is not included in the subject matter of the lawsuit in the above lawsuit, it cannot be viewed as naturally subject to the above settlement, and even after examining the record, there is no evidence to find that the plaintiff and the defendant included the relation of the right to indemnity on the above borrowed amount as the subject matter of the settlement in the above litigation.

However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the validity of the above judicial compromise, which judged that the claim for reimbursement of this case goes against the validity of the above judicial compromise, and this constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and thus, it is reasonable to discuss this point.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)