Whether a compromise with the condition of invalidation can be achieved even in a judicial compromise (affirmative)

In a judicial compromise, an agreement that invalidates the effect of a compromise when a third party raises an objection, may be concluded, and the effect of a compromise shall naturally lapse due to the fulfillment of the conditions of invalidation.

Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1514 decided Mar. 2, 1965 (No. 13 ② civil65) 88Meu2332 decided Aug. 9, 198 (Gong1988,1211)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and two others

Gwangju District Court Decision 91Na7275 delivered on November 27, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

(1) On the first ground for appeal

In light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, the judicial compromise in this case between the non-party and the non-party Green Agricultural Cooperative shall be deemed to be an effective compromise when the plaintiff, who is the actual owner of the real estate in this case, raises an objection to the lawsuit in this case, and the effect of the compromise in this case shall be deemed to have been null and void since it is evident that the plaintiff raised an objection by the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the court below determined that each registration in the name of the defendants, which was made based on the invalid compromise, was an invalid registration without any cause, shall be deemed to have been made. The court below's decision that the agreement to make the settlement effective if a third party raises an objection, can be concluded with the agreement to have the effect of the compromise null and void, and the effect of the compromise shall be naturally extinguished due to the fulfillment of the conditions of invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Da1514, Mar. 2, 196; 8Da2332, Aug. 9, 1988).

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

The defendants asserted in the preparatory document dated December 5, 1989 that "the plaintiff's assertion that 20 lots of land, including the land of this case, was trusted to the Green Agricultural Cooperative, the non-party who was transferred ownership by the title trustee or any third party thereafter may not file a trust claim without asking any good faith or bad faith," but following the statement in the preparatory document dated June 13, 191, the defendants argued that "the above non-party's registration in the name of the non-party is deemed to be a title trust with the above non-party, and the ownership is externally against the above non-party, it is justifiable to acquire the real estate of this case since the ownership is externally against the above non-party, the registration in the name of the above non-party, which is invalid, cannot be deemed to be valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the registration in the name of the above non-party and the above non-party's substantive legal relationship, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration in the above non-party's legal relationship was valid before the above was rejected.

(3) On the third ground for appeal:

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged that the waiver of the above evidence No. 15,17 No. 5-3 was against three parcels, such as the above ( Address 1 or 3 omitted), and rejected the evidence consistent with the defendants' assertion that the land is included in the object of waiver of objection, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence by violating the rules of experience such as theory. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's objection as provided in Paragraph 9 of judicial compromise between the above non-party and the above union does not appear to refer to the factual aspect of raising an objection, and therefore, it is just to reject the defendants' assertion that the above objection was not extinguished by the statute of limitations of 10 years since it did not affect the plaintiff's right to raise an objection, and even if the above objection was deemed to have been an objection as an exercise of right, it cannot be said that the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim that the above non-party's claim that the above non-party's claim was extinguished by 100 months from the date of 100.7 months of the above agreement.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)