1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 3, 2007, C and D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damage against D, on the grounds that “The collision between E and C owned by the Plaintiff, causing damage equivalent to KRW 4,540,00,00 of the cost of repair of the ship to C, and as the damage was incurred to D, who was on board F, equivalent to KRW 5,737,680, such as the cost of injury treatment, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 2,497,000, equivalent to KRW 555% of the Plaintiff’s negligence ratio to C, 3,15,724, respectively.”

(hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). The Plaintiff appointed the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, as an attorney and responded to the instant lawsuit.

B. In the instant lawsuit, conciliation was established between the Plaintiff, C, and D on March 28, 2008 (hereinafter “instant conciliation”). The Plaintiff did not appear on the date of the instant conciliation, and the Defendant appeared as the Plaintiff’s legal representative.

1. The plaintiff shall pay C KRW 2,00,000, and KRW 1,500,000 to D until April 30, 2008. If the plaintiff fails to pay each of the above amounts by the above payment date, the plaintiff shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum from May 1, 2008 to the date of full payment.

2. waives the remainder of C and D claims.

3. The costs of lawsuit and mediation shall be borne by each person;

C. On January 4, 2017, C and D filed an application with the Plaintiff for a seizure and collection order based on the original copy of the instant protocol of conciliation with the Gwangju District Court (2017TTTT49). On January 18, 2017, C and D received a seizure and collection order from the said court.

(hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”). D.

The plaintiff raised an appeal against C against the seizure and collection order of the instant claim (No. 2017Ra53) against C, C, and D for the refusal of compulsory execution based on the conciliation protocol of this case.