The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The decision of recommending a compromise has the same effect as a judicial compromise (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act). If a settlement has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and if a settlement contract between the parties constitutes the content thereof, the settlement shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise (Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Act), the settlement shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment. However, if the settlement takes its original effect and takes effect, it shall be limited to the matters on which the parties have agreed to determine the creation and effect of the settlement, and the scope of the settlement shall be limited to the matters on which the parties have agreed to yield and confirm the mutual concession, and

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da17319 delivered on April 27, 2001, etc.). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

① Some of the buyers of the instant commercial buildings, including the Defendant, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the reconstruction association, an agent of a reconstruction project, seeking the return of the sale price due to the invalidity, cancellation, or cancellation, etc. of the sales contract in the first claim under the Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap17982, 2010 Gohap32196 (Joint), 2010 Gohap37054 (Joint), 2010 Gohap8601 (Joint), and 2010 Gohap105827 (Joint), and was sentenced to a decision of dismissal on June 13, 2013.

② As to the above judgment, the Defendant, etc. was the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court) No. 2013Na56480, 2013Na56497 (Consolidated), 2013Na56503 (Consolidated), 2013Na56510 (Consolidated), and 2013Na56527 (Consolidated).