Cases of dispute over the invalidation of judicial compromise and litigation for retrial

If a settlement is entered in a protocol, that protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, the claim of invalidation or cancellation of a settlement contract under private law is interrupted by res judicata of the protocol of settlement, and the effect of the protocol of settlement can only be contested by the action for nullification of independent compromise or by the application for designation of the date of the protocol of settlement.

Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Mask-Jin

Korea Life Insurance Corporation

Gwangju District Court Decision 61No628 delivered on November 8, 1961

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff Lee Jae-ho is as shown in the attached Form.

The gist of the plaintiff's claim is only the fact that the plaintiff borrowed 3 million won money from the defendant company through the plaintiff company's tear. The plaintiff's claim for this lawsuit contains the plaintiff's seal, without permission, and the non-party satisfy, an attorney-at-law, appointed a contract for sale and purchase (the plaintiff purchaser company) with special agreement to repurchase the real estate between the plaintiff and the defendant in the case of the defendant company's claim for compromise is established, and the settlement was entered in the protocol, but the plaintiff sells the real estate in the defendant company's name, and there is no way to appoint the non-party satisfy to the defendant company as his agent in the case of the above settlement application, so such settlement is naturally null and void, and since the ownership transfer registration on the premise of such settlement is invalid without any ground, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim for invalidation and ownership transfer registration cannot be asserted as invalid due to the plaintiff's claim for compromise between the defendant and the plaintiff's legal representative's right to claim the cancellation of the above settlement agreement and its legal representative's right.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim to confirm the invalidity of compromise in the principal lawsuit is not necessary to protect the right because it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the judicial compromise, and the claim to cancel the registration of ownership transfer premised on the invalidation of compromise is also not accepted as a claim inconsistent with the above res judicata effect.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim is in violation of res judicata and thus it is improper to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, the judgment of the court below is unfair, but it is justified for other reasons. Thus, the appeal is dismissed without examining the plaintiff's grounds of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags