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

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) asserts to the effect that there was a ground for quasi-examination, and that there was a ground for quasi-examination since the mediation protocol was unilaterally prepared to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not hear the detailed explanation of the presiding judge.

However, according to Articles 461 and 220 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, a quasi-examination suit against a conciliation protocol may be instituted only when there are grounds provided for in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no assertion that the defendant's assertion does not fall under the grounds for quasi-examination provided for in the above Act, and that it falls under

[Defendant appears to have raised an objection immediately to the full bench at the time of the formation of the instant conciliation protocol, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the records, it can be recognized that the full bench directly signed by the Defendant in the document (hereinafter “Article 2014da63489 Coordination”) stating the content of the instant conciliation protocol (hereinafter “Article 2014da63489 Coordination”), and the Defendant’s assertion is groundless and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. Therefore, the Defendant’s lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.