1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 21, 2000, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the following conciliation provisions in the Daegu District Court 2000s money6716 case

(hereinafter “Powery Conciliation Clause”) 1. Waiver of the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.

2. The Plaintiff does not raise any objection to the future civil or criminal matters regarding the instant case.

3. On May 31, 200, the plaintiff and the defendant shall live together with the ruling after making a report on a person who was remarried by May 31, 200, and in case where the plaintiff reverses the future marriage relationship, the plaintiff shall pay 50,000,000 won to the other party.

4. Litigation costs and conciliation costs shall be borne by each person;

B. The plaintiff and the defendant did not report the marriage since the establishment of the mediation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Mediation shall be concluded by entering the matters agreed between the parties in the protocol, and the protocol shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, such as the protocol of judicial conciliation

In addition, in a case where a judgment in a prior suit ordering the performance of the other party's obligation becomes final and conclusive, the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect, and where the said party files a lawsuit against the other party to the prior suit for the same claim as that ordering performance in the final and conclusive judgment

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff in accordance with Article 3(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff and the defendant's matrimonial relationship have not come up due to the failure of the plaintiff and the defendant's marital relationship, even though they

In conclusion, this is the purport of seeking the performance of the conciliation clause in the prior suit, and is unlawful because the lawsuit in this case has res judicata effect under the conciliation clause in the prior suit, there is no benefit to protect rights.

However, Article 3 (3) of the previous conciliation clause is a conditional legal act, and the defendant is the defendant.