1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

The facts under the conciliation protocol subject to quasi-examination are apparent in the record or obvious in this court.

Plaintiff

On June 22, 2010, the appointed party filed the instant lawsuit with the Suwon District Court, the first instance court, the Suwon District Court, as the court of first instance, by 2010dan23296, and the first instance court, on January 27, 2012, declared the first instance court that accepted all the primary claims of the designated party.

Conciliation Provisions

1. By November 30, 2015, the Defendant and the Intervenor: (a) indicated 1,2,3,4, and 1 of the attached Form No. 140,158 square meters in order to the Plaintiff (designated parties); (b) indicated 1,2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table No. 7 square meters in line with the Plaintiff’s and the appointed parties; and (c) indicated 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 5 of the same appraisal map; and (d) indicated 67 square meters in line with the same appraisal map; (c) indicated 13,14,15, 16, 17, 18, and 13 square meters in line with each of the above items; and (d) renounced the ownership of each of the above portion 7,67 square meters in line with each of the land no. 7,671 square meters in line.

2. The remaining claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties shall be waived.

3. The total costs and expenses for conciliation shall be borne by each person.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed, and on March 28, 2013 of the instant case No. 2012Na6773, the appellate court, the Plaintiff’s appointed parties, the Defendant, and the Intervenor E, and M were present at the conciliation date, and the conciliation protocol subject to quasi-examination (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was established between the above parties as follows (hereinafter “instant conciliation”). On the same day, the conciliation protocol subject to quasi-examination was prepared.

On June 21, 2018, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant conciliation was established based on the forged cadastral map submitted by the Plaintiff’s designated party, and that the said conciliation constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)1 through 11 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Defendant’s revocation, etc. of the instant conciliation protocol against the Plaintiff’s designated party.