1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on July 24, 2019 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

2. The Plaintiff’s litigation cost after the date of application is designated.

1. The fact that the withdrawal of the lawsuit prepared by the Plaintiff was submitted to this Court on July 24, 2019, and the fact that the Defendant consented to the withdrawal of the lawsuit on July 26, 2019 is apparent.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is without prejudice to the meaning of the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and it is invalid or non-existence of taking the lawsuit by deceiving the defendant's employee into consideration the signature and seal of the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

3. Determination

A. The withdrawal of a lawsuit is the litigation against the plaintiff's court to extinguish the continuation of the lawsuit by withdrawing the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, and the litigation is bound to determine whether it has its validity on the basis of its indication rather than the intention of internal deliberation, unlike the act under general private law. Thus, as long as a written withdrawal of a lawsuit has been submitted, the plaintiff cannot withdraw it at will without asking the other party before or after the service of the document.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da6124 delivered on June 27, 1997, etc.). In addition, the provisions pertaining to legal acts under the Civil Act shall not apply to acts of litigation under the Civil Procedure Act, unless there are special provisions or special circumstances. Thus, the withdrawal of a lawsuit may not be again revoked on the ground of mistake or deception. Even if litigation was conducted due to another person’s act subject to criminal punishment, such as fraud and coercion, even if the judgment of conviction against the other person’s act becomes final and conclusive and the litigation was conducted externally without the corresponding intent, its validity may be denied by analogical interpretation of the provisions of Article 451(1)5 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da35484 delivered on October 10, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 82Meu963 delivered on May 29, 198, etc.). (b)

In light of the above legal principles, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff withdrawn the instant lawsuit by deceiving the Defendant’s employee solely on the records of No. 8 and the Plaintiff’s personal examination result. The public official belonging to the Defendant made fraud and coercion regarding the withdrawal of the instant lawsuit.