Judicial Compromise and Retrial

When a protocol of judicial compromise has been entered, the parties may not make any assertion contrary to the purport of such compromise, unless it has been cancelled or changed by a litigation for retrial, since the protocol has the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment and res judicata takes effect.

Articles 206, 422, and 423 of the Civil Procedure Act

Spherema

Han Ho-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 60No1604 delivered on June 7, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 201Da1604 delivered on June 7, 201

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as stated in the reasoning of appeal, which is completed at the end of this judgment.

I think, when recording a settlement in the court record, the protocol has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, and the res judicata takes effect between the parties. Thus, unless the parties have cancelled or changed by a lawsuit for retrial, the parties cannot make any assertion contrary to the purport of the settlement. As to this point, the court decision of the court below (Supreme Court Decision 428DaDa2229 delivered on September 15, 195, Supreme Court Decision 4290DaDa638 delivered on December 26, 195) has changed it. In this case, the plaintiff entered a settlement in the court record on March 23, 1960, but the plaintiff should pay 2,095,000 won to the defendant according to the contents of the settlement, and the defendant did not perform it, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a settlement in accordance with the purport of the court below's decision that a settlement in the court record was in violation of private law, as the defendant did not explain the cancellation of the contract due to the cancellation and invalidation of the contract.

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

Justices Cho Jin-man (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision 2011Hun-Ga, Kim Jin-man (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jin-man (Presiding Justice)