beta
Main Issues
Whether an application for designation of date is appropriate to dispute the validity of judicial compromise (negative)
Summary of Decision
When a protocol of judicial compromise is entered, such protocol shall have the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment, and res judicata exists between the parties, so that it may be contested only by the litigation of retrial unless there is any ground such as a ground for the invalidation of the final and conclusive judgment, and an application for designation of date is not allowed
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 152(2), 206, and 422 of the Civil Procedure Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court en banc Decision 4294Nois914 Decided February 15, 1962 (No. 122)
Special Appellants
Kim Jong-tae
The order of the court below
Busan District Court Order 89Na74, 3769 (Counterclaim) dated January 3, 1990
Text
The special appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds for special appeal are examined.
When a judicial compromise is entered in a protocol, such protocol shall have the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment, and res judicata exists between the parties, so that it may be asserted only by a litigation for retrial unless there is any ground such as the party’s per se invalidation of the final and conclusive judgment, and an application for designation of date is not allowed to dispute its validity (see Supreme Court Decision 4294No914 delivered on February 15, 1262)
In light of the records, in this case, the reason for the request for designation of the date for special appellant is not implemented as the content of the protocol of compromise, and the reason for the invalidation of the protocol of compromise is not asserted. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the request for designation of the date of this case by unlawful means is just and there is no error of law such as the interpretation of law, or the interpretation of law contrary to the precedents of party members.
Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)