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. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, as Seoul East Eastern District Court 2015Kadan5010 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

B. On December 2, 2015, when the lawsuit is pending, a voluntary conciliation as described in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant conciliation”) was established, and the instant conciliation protocol was prepared.

[Ground of recognition] Facts that a dispute is not or is not clearly disputed, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the existence of a ground for quasi-examination

A. The conciliation of this case subject to the Defendant’s quasi-deliberation has grounds for quasi-deliberation falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, such as omitting any judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment, such as the specific schedule of visit, the selection of the place of visit, etc.

B. We examine the judgment, and the quasi-deliberation lawsuit is permitted only when it falls under the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. If the grounds asserted by the quasi-Review Plaintiff do not fall under such grounds, the lawsuit for quasi-Review shall be dismissed as it is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996). Meanwhile, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the cases where the judgment is not clearly indicated in the grounds for the judgment as to the method of attack and defense submitted by the parties, which affect the judgment, without stating the reasons for the judgment different from the written judgment, and there is no room to regard the omission of the judgment as grounds for retrial where a voluntary adjustment is conducted by autonomous agreement between the parties, and all the grounds for quasi-Review that the defendant asserted by the defendant were already asserted or could have been asserted in the proceedings prior to the conciliation of