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

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

On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a mediation protocol subject to quasi-deliberation against the Defendant and C, seeking loans from the Suwon District Court Branch 2017Kadan205812, and on August 11, 2017, the mediation protocol (hereinafter “instant mediation protocol”) was prepared upon the completion of the attendance of the Plaintiff D, Defendant, and C as indicated in the attached clause.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 3, obvious facts in records, existence of grounds for quasi-examination as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff asserts that there is a ground for retrial corresponding to "when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the defendant and C did not have properly paid interest for 33,00,000,000 won borrowed from the plaintiff on November 2, 2009 by the plaintiff until the time of the preparation of the instant protocol, the interest portion should be naturally reflected in the instant protocol. Thus, the instant protocol does not contain any part of interest claimed by the plaintiff."

A lawsuit for a retrial or retrial shall be permitted only when there are grounds prescribed by Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, in a case where the ground alleged by the plaintiff for retrial does not fall under such ground, the lawsuit for

(See Supreme Court Decisions 82Da14 delivered on September 14, 1982; 96Da31307 delivered on October 25, 1996, etc.). However, the grounds for retrial that the Plaintiff asserted “when failing to make a decision on important matters that may affect the judgment,” stipulated in the grounds for retrial that may arise in relation to the description of the grounds for retrial among the grounds for retrial on the final judgment finalized, and the protocol that does not contain any different reasons for retrial may not exist, unless otherwise stated in the written judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27167 delivered on February 23, 2006). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for quasi-deliberation of this case is brought.