(a) Matters subject to review on reconciliation prior to filing a lawsuit;

(b) The reconciliation prior to the filing of a lawsuit has been reversed by a retrial, and the subsequent procedures;

(a) an objection to the protocol of compromise shall be made by the method corresponding to the proceeding for retrial and shall not be made by the method seeking cancellation or invalidation of the compromise;

B. The method of appeal against the protocol of compromise prior to filing a lawsuit should also be the method corresponding to the lawsuit for retrial, as in the case of an objection against the compromise in a lawsuit.

Articles 355 and 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 10 (Court-Appointed, Attorney Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Transfer Intervention

Daegu High Court Decision 62Na6 delivered on July 5, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to ground of appeal No. 1

Since the provision of Article 147 of the Civil Procedure Act is a provision of the general nature, it shall apply mutatis mutandis to the reconciliation procedure even if there is no express provision, and Article 149 of the theory of lawsuit shall be deemed to be merely a provision of attention. Therefore, there is no error in the original judgment regarding the interpretation of the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment. There is no ground

For the same reason 2

According to the records, since it is apparent that the court of fact-finding has taken the examination of evidence against the witness and appraisal, which is the evidence method of the plaintiff's motion, it cannot be deemed the only evidence method of the lawsuit, and even if the plaintiff believed that the method of the lawsuit is the only evidence to deny the formation of the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, it cannot be deemed that the above evidence method of the lawsuit is the only evidence method of the plaintiff who is obligated to investigate, and therefore there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the original judgment, since the above evidence method of the lawsuit cannot be deemed the only evidence method of the plaintiff who is obligated to investigate, even though the plaintiff believed that the evidence method of the lawsuit is the only evidence to deny the formation of No.

For the same reason 3

According to the provisions of Article 206 of the former Civil Procedure Act (Article 203 of the former Civil Procedure Act), a protocol of compromise is recognized as having the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment, and the question of whether res judicata is recognized is different from that recognized as to the previous protocol of compromise in the interpretation of the provisions of the former Civil Procedure Act. Even though there is a difference between those recognized as to the extent of res judicata effect, it cannot be denied the validity of res judicata effect recognized by the above provisions on the grounds of this, and as such, as such, a compromise is based on the principle of pleading which recognizes the freedom of disposition by the parties' interests, even though it has the nature of autonomous resolution, it cannot be logical contradiction in recognizing the same effect as that of the judgment, which is the autonomous resolution method, and rather, recognizing the invalidation or revocation of compromise after the settlement is established is a lawsuit causing unnecessary uncertainty, and as long as the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment is acknowledged, it cannot be acknowledged that a lawsuit for compromise has no effect of res judicata effect as to the final and conclusive judgment procedure, even before the lawsuit has been concluded.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)