Whether a party to a compromise in court may seek a revocation of the protocol of compromise on the ground that the other party’s legal representation right, etc. is a ground for retrial.

Unlike the judgment of the court and the completion of the lawsuit following its final judgment, a compromise in the lawsuit is a system based on an agreement between both parties to terminate the lawsuit by mutual agreement by giving the parties a statement to the court by mutual agreement on the legal relationship, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, while the lawsuit is pending. Therefore, it is not permissible in light of the legal principles of gold-competing, regardless of whether a party, who had completed the lawsuit due to such settlement in the lawsuit, is entitled to seek a revocation of the compromise on the ground that the other party

Articles 206 and 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Dongnam Housing Co., Ltd.

New sea species

Jeonju District Court of the first instance (Law Firm Jae-dan39 delivered on July 1, 200)

1. The defendant (the quasi-Appellant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (the quasi-Appellant).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The protocol of compromise drawn up on April 28, 1989 shall be revoked with respect to the case of the order of the Jeonju District Court 87Kadan1041 building.

The plaintiff (the quasi-Appellant defendant)'s claim is dismissed.

All costs of the principal lawsuit and the retrial lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (quasi-Review defendant).

On November 20, 1987, the previous Jeju District Court 87Da1041 delivered on November 28, 1987 against the defendant (the quasi-Review defendant, the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff et al., the defendant ordered the plaintiff to waive the remaining claims of the plaintiff on June 28, 1989.

The defendant, as a cause for the retrial of this case, is registered as the plaintiff's director and the representative director of the company on August 10, 1987. However, this case is registered as above on the ground that the above 2nd meeting and the minutes of the board of directors were prepared by the above provisional shareholders' meeting or resolution of the company, and on the ground that the above 2nd meeting and the above 3nd meeting are not legitimate representative director of the company. Thus, the above 2nd meeting and the above 3nd meeting of the court's ruling that the above 9th meeting and the above 2nd meeting of the court's motion for retrial are not legitimate reasons for retrial (see Supreme Court evidence No. 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the above 2nd meeting and the above 3nd meeting of the court's motion for retrial cannot be acknowledged as the grounds for retrial, regardless of the above 9th meeting and the above 2nd meeting of the court's motion for new trial testimony and evidence No. 92nd meeting of the court below.

In addition, the defendant argues that the above reconciliation in the lawsuit between the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company should be revoked because the plaintiff company was registered in the corporate register but there is no substance. However, it is obvious that such a ground does not constitute any ground for retrial under any of the subparagraphs of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the defendant's lawsuit for quasi-examination of this case, which is based on the premise that there is a ground for retrial in the above protocol of conciliation, shall be dismissed, and it is reasonable to conclude that the original judgment is just, and the defendant's appeal against this is without merit, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' Change Shell (Presiding Judge)