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

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

1. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act, etc. by this court’s 2012Kadan9082. From the conciliation date that was referred to the conciliation and implemented on April 23, 2013, an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the same content as that of the attached conciliation clause has been concluded, and the facts indicated in the quasi-deliberation clause are clearly indicated in the record.

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the quasi-adjudication suit of this case

A. The grounds and criteria for determining the legitimacy of the primary claim (a claim for cancellation of a protocol subject to quasi-examination) are effective as a judicial compromise, and the conciliation protocol has the same effect as that of a judicial compromise under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if there exist grounds provided for in Article 461(1) of the same Act, a quasi-examination may be instituted as to the conciliation protocol. The grounds for retrial provided for in Article 451(1) of the same Act fall under separate grounds, and they are examined as to the existence of each quasi-deliberation ground alleged by the defendant (On the other hand, the defendant also seeks a retrial to the effect that the conciliation is revoked on the ground that "any mistake in matters other than dispute exists" exists pursuant to the proviso of Article 733(Effect and Mistake of Conciliation) of the Civil Act. However, the conciliation protocol has the same effect as that of the final and conclusive judgment, and has the same effect as res judicata effect between the parties. Thus, the conciliation protocol cannot be cancelled or asserted for the reason that the declaration of intention was rejected by a quasi-adjudication procedure.

Therefore, it is not necessary to separately determine whether there is a defect in the defendant's expression of intent in examining the existence of grounds for retrial as follows.

2) As to the grounds under Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act, the defendant is presumed to have a preserved claim against B, who is the husband of the defendant.