1. The plaintiff's quasi-appeal shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the construction price of KRW 34.9 million in this court (2016Gadan26290), but the fact that the decision became final and conclusive around that time is nonexistent due to the issuance of a decision in lieu of the instant conciliation from January 19, 2017 during the conciliation procedure of the instant case, or that the fact that the said decision became final and conclusive does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by adding the overall purport of the evidence No.

2. In a case where the court of the lawsuit, in addition to the fact-finding and determination of the relevant case, takes into account all the circumstances and there is no reason to be indicated in the decision protocol substituting the conciliation, whether there is a ground for quasi-deliberation as to the said decision protocol ought to be strictly determined compared with the retrial against the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da55936, Jun. 24, 2005). Furthermore, in a case where the court of the lawsuit asserts that there is a ground for a retrial not falling under a legitimate

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307 delivered on October 25, 1996). The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff made a false statement in the conciliation procedure as the ground for the quasi-examination of this case, and that it is a quasi-examination ground under Articles 461 and 451 subparag. 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, there is not only lack of evidence to deem that the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff were the basis of the decision in lieu of the instant conciliation, and of fact-finding regarding the said decision, but also statements that are inconsistent with facts by the Defendant, a party to the conciliation procedure.

However, this cannot be deemed as constituting “when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, or interpreter or by a party or legal representative under an examination of the parties concerned or when the false statement by the party or legal representative becomes evidence of the judgment” under Article 451 subparag. 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case is a ground for retrial that does not constitute a legitimate ground for retrial.