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

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

purport.

1. On August 10, 2016, the date of the second pleading, which was the date of pleading of the case in which the Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan65757, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant for a final judgment on the record subject to quasi-deliberation, was under review. The fact that the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, and that the protocol of acceptance of the instant quasi-deliberation, which contained such content, was made clear in the record.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is the cause for filing a petition for quasi-deliberation of this case, and the Defendant merely recognized that “the Plaintiff has borrowed KRW 40,000,000 from the Plaintiff,” at the time of the acceptance, and asserted that the agreement was made out by the Defendant as the seal of the Defendant, notwithstanding the fact that the loan was not deemed to have a duty to repay due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, even though there was no fact that the loan was extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and thus, it constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment,” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, sought the revocation of

B. A quasi-examination suit is allowed only in cases where there are grounds for quasi-examination stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and where the grounds for a quasi-examination do not constitute grounds for quasi-examination as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Act, the suit shall be deemed unlawful.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that junior administrative officers, etc. enter the gist of the pleading in the protocol, but the matters concerning confessions shall be clearly stated in particular, and that the protocol is signed and sealed by the presiding judge and the interested parties may file an objection and request perusal of the protocol, it shall be deemed that the contents of the pleading have a strong probative value as to the fact that the contents of the pleading are true, unless there are other special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2001Da6367 delivered on April 13, 2001). The Defendant’s return to the instant case and health class, and the Defendant’s return to the instant personal records, are not true.