1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on March 11, 2016 as conciliation.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the request for setting the date.

1. The following facts are apparent in records:

On March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appeared on the date of the instant conciliation, and the protocol for conciliation was prepared, and the protocol for conciliation was prepared, as shown in the attached conciliation clause.

(hereinafter “instant protocol of mediation”). B.

The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the conciliation conducted on March 18, 2016, which was after the conciliation was completed as above, as of March 18, 2016.

'I submitted a written application to the effect that it was ‘.'

2. Determination

A. When a settlement in the court is entered in the protocol, such protocol has the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment, and res judicata between the parties takes effect, so that it can be asserted only by the litigation for retrial unless there exists the same reason as that of the final and conclusive judgment. However, when one of the parties claims the grounds for invalidation as a matter of course of a protocol, and makes an application for designation of the date, the court shall make a declaration of termination of the lawsuit by judgment in case where it is deemed that there is no reason for invalidation after designating the date for trial in order to raise objection to the existence of the grounds for invalidation, and the same applies to the protocol of mediation

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da58668 delivered on March 9, 2001, etc.). B.

In the case of this case, although the title of the document submitted by the plaintiff who is dissatisfied with the conciliation protocol of this case is written as coal application, it is deemed that the date is designated in light of the contents of the above document.

However, there is no evidence to prove the existence of the grounds for invalidation under the instant protocol of mediation.

Rather, according to the records, the conciliation was concluded when both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were present on March 11, 2016 regarding the instant case, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant directly signed on their respective names, stating that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant confirm that they will not raise any objection after confirming the conciliation clause.”

3. Conclusion, this case.