If a compromise prior to the filing of a lawsuit has been made but its contents are contrary to the mandatory law, the validity of such compromise

Since the protocol of compromise under Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, it is merely a defect in a judicial compromise even if the content of the protocol is contrary to the mandatory law, and it is a separate problem to receive a remedy by a retrial procedure, and it cannot be asserted that the protocol of compromise is invalid before the filing of a lawsuit (Article 355 of the Civil Procedure Act). This legal principle also applies to the reconciliation before the filing of a lawsuit.

The representative director of the social welfare foundation Busan Children Village shall be the legal representative of the legal representative of the legal representative

Man-Woo

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na632 delivered on March 19, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the protocol of compromise shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when the protocol of compromise is entered. Thus, even if the content of the protocol is contrary to the compulsory law, it is merely a defect in the judicial compromise, and it is not a separate issue to receive the remedy through the procedure of retrial, and it is not possible to assert the invalidity of the protocol of compromise under Article 355 of the Civil Procedure Act. This legal principle also applies to the settlement under Article 355 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant's title to the real estate was made by the original court as security at the time of the settlement, there was no resolution of the Foundation Council in providing the real estate which is the fundamental property of the plaintiff foundation at the time of the settlement, and it is obvious that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the registration of ownership transfer between the defendant and the original court on the real estate at the time of the settlement, or there was no permission of the supervising Minister or no monetary lending or loan transaction.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)