1. The Seoul Northern District Court 2015Kadan14528 case for the name map of buildings shall revoke the protocol of compromise on July 7, 2016.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant C, B, and D with Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Da14528, which also declared that the name of the building was also the same.

B. On July 7, 2016, on the date of the first conciliation of the instant case, the name of the building, the attorney-at-law was present at the L Law Firm E-at-law as the representative of the Plaintiff, Defendant C, B, and D, and the attorney-at-law transferred the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of five million won from the Plaintiff. “The content of the instant reconciliation (hereinafter “the instant reconciliation”) was established, and the protocol of conciliation (hereinafter “the instant protocol of conciliation”) was drafted.

C. However, at the time of the settlement of the instant case, Llaw Firm was not authorized by Defendant C to represent the said case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 17, 18, and 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the existence of a ground for quasi-examination, the conciliation in this case is null and void as being involved by a person without the authority of representation, and there exists a ground for quasi-examination as it constitutes “when there is any defect in granting the authority of legal representation, powers of attorney, powers of attorney, or authority required for conducting procedural acts,” under Articles 461 and 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the conciliation in

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant C occupies it without permission, thereby seeking the delivery of the said real estate.

B. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale and purchase of the instant real estate in the future, G, a foundation, around August 2, 2016.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on ownership of the real estate of this case is without merit.

4. The conclusion of the instant protocol of conciliation is inappropriate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.