beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (the quasi-Appellant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. The plaintiff also has the nature of a compromise contract under the Civil Act, and in the case of a compromise contract under the Civil Act, if the parties are erroneous in matters other than the dispute which is the object of the compromise, it may be cancelled. The plaintiff or defendant B did not discuss the right to collateral security as to the share of the defendant B among the real estate recorded in the above protocol of compromise at the time of the settlement of this case. Thus, the above right to collateral security falls under matters other than the dispute which is the object of the settlement of this case, and thus, it
A lawsuit for quasi-deliberation may be brought only in cases where there are grounds stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act pursuant to Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the above grounds asserted by the Plaintiff do not fall under this, it is impossible to seek quasi-adjudication for this reason.
[Attachment, reconciliation in a lawsuit may not be revoked on the ground of fraud or mistake, contrary to private law, as a litigation act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da1094, May 15, 1979). The above assertion is without merit.
B. In addition, the plaintiff is a special acceptance of a compromise in the lawsuit. The plaintiff presented his opinion that the real estate stated in Section 1-4 (4) of the attached Table No. 1 is owned by the defendant B, and that the plaintiff consented to the method of spot distribution with the real estate stated in Section 1-5 (5) of the same list as owned by the plaintiff, and although it was not delegated to the legal representative to prepare a protocol of compromise with the same content, it was prepared by the protocol of conciliation in the case