1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. Formation of quasi-examination mediation protocol;

A. On September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking delivery of the instant building with the Gwangju District Court 2017Kadan5981.

B. On February 12, 2018, the conciliation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the date of conciliation as described in attached Table 2, and was prepared.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the grounds for quasi-examination

A. The Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant could not use the instant building in compliance with its original purpose because the Plaintiff did not perform the duty to repair or install boilers as stipulated in the instant conciliation protocol, and the Plaintiff was unable to use electricity other than that.

In addition, the instant protocol of mediation omitted part of the deposit amount of KRW 10 million.

Therefore, the cancellation of the instant conciliation protocol is sought.

B. Inasmuch as a lawsuit for a retrial on the final judgment that became final and conclusive is permitted only when there exists a ground stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if the ground alleged by the Plaintiff for a retrial does not fall under such ground, the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996). In addition, the settlement in a lawsuit is established by the procedural acts to terminate the lawsuit based on the concession of both parties, and there is no judgment of the court. Thus, as to the protocol of protocol, there cannot be the term “when the judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment is omitted” as referred to in Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it cannot be considered as a ground for a retrial for the protocol of protocol (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da136, Oct. 31, 1963). This is the same as the protocol of protocol.

As to the instant case, each of the above reasons alleged by the Defendant is the Civil Procedure Act.