1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 1998, the Seoul District Court's Dong Branch 98Gahap920 filed against the Plaintiff, rendered a judgment on October 1, 1998 that "the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 56,00,000 won and interest at the rate of 25 percent per annum from June 11, 1998 until the full payment is made," and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time because the Plaintiff did not appeal.

B. The Defendant’s compulsory auction procedure against the apartment owned by the Plaintiff was conducted based on the above judgment, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for objection against the Defendant on the ground of partial repayment, etc., and on January 31, 2002, the Seoul District Court rendered a mediation to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay 13 million won to the Defendant up to February 28, 2002, and if the Plaintiff delayed the payment of the said money, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount by adding 15% per annum to the amount at the rate of 15% per annum from the time of delay until the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant mediation”). The Defendant’s compulsory execution by the judgment on the claim for lease deposit against the Seoul District Court Branch Branch 98Kahap920, the Seoul District Court Branch 9920, which rejected the compulsory execution by the judgment on the claim for lease deposit (hereinafter “instant mediation”).

C. After that, on November 20, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation by asserting that the conciliation of this case was established when the Plaintiff’s agent and the Defendant’s agent did not appear on the date of conciliation as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012DaGa32, which was the Defendant’s agent, and that the conciliation of this case was established while the Plaintiff’s agent and the Defendant were present at the date of conciliation. However, on May 23, 2013, the said court dismissed the lawsuit for quasi-deliberation on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the conciliation of this case was established under the absence of power of attorney on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that

Therefore, although the defendant appealed against the above judgment, the appellate court rendered the defendant's appeal on December 17, 2013.