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

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

1. On September 21, 2005, in a case subject to quasi-deliberation filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant, the facts that the Plaintiff A, the Plaintiffs’ legal representative, and the Defendant present each and the conciliation (hereinafter “instant conciliation”) on the date of conciliation, and that the conciliation protocol was prepared is evident in the record.

2. The defendant's assertion

A. In the case subject to quasi-deliberation of the defect of the power of attorney, the defendant appointed E as the attorney, and the above attorney acted in bad faith in oral proceedings, and the defendant, in the case subject to quasi-examination, has entered into mediation with any content different from the defendant's will in the absence of any knowledge about the progress of the quasi-examination. However, it is recognized that the defendant was present on the date of mediation of this case.

[The purport of the entire pleadings in the lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case, together with the lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case, the argument in this court 2012Gahap1806, 2012Gahap1813 (Counterclaim), etc.). This constitutes a case where there is any defect in the power of attorney as prescribed by Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “the Act”).

B. The mediation of this case omitted in judgment is established with excessive consideration of the result of the disposition of related criminal cases against the defendant, the defect repair liability period under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which constitutes omission of judgment under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Act.

3. On its own initiative, we examine whether the instant quasi-deliberation suit complies with the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

A quasi-deliberation suit shall be filed within five years from the time the conciliation is completed (Articles 461 and 456(3) of the Act): Provided, That the foregoing restriction provision concerning the period of time is not applicable to a suit filed for a retrial on the grounds of defects in the power of attorney or the matters provided for in Article 451(1)10 of the Act (Article 457 of the Act).