1. The appeal by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant adds the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, the court of first instance cites it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that the mediation of this case was established under the premise that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land and buildings listed in the separate sheet based on Gap 7 transfer certificate submitted by the plaintiffs (hereinafter "the documentary evidence of this case"). The contents of the mediation of this case were recorded in the mediation of this case, but it was forged, and the statement through the appraiser's appraisal statement that the seal and the pen are identical with the defendant's seal and pen image is also false. Thus, there is a ground for quasi-examination falling under Article 451 (1) 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When the documents or other articles used as evidence for the judgment have been forged or altered,” and Article 451(1)7 of the same Act provides that “when the false statement by a witness, expert witness, interpreter, or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party examination has become evidence of the judgment,” the grounds for retrial.

However, if the matters agreed upon between the parties on the date of mediation are entered in the protocol, the protocol has the same effect as a judicial compromise, and such conciliation is established due to the procedural acts to terminate the dispute through mutual concession between the parties, and there is no room to intervene in the fact-finding or legal judgment of the court. Thus, there is no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the protocol.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da55087, Feb. 17, 2005). Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s lawsuit for quasi-deliberation is unlawful.

Even if the defendant asserts in the first instance court and the trial court.