1. Of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of the attached list Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16.

1. Where the facts have been found that the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant B was excessive even though the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant was completed, the court shall ex officio declare the termination of the lawsuit;

(1) According to the records, the aforementioned Defendants participated in the conciliation process on May 30, 2016, but failed to mediate. On the same day, the original copy of each of the instant decision was issued to the Plaintiff and the Defendants on June 13, 2016. The fact that the Plaintiff and Defendant B received the above decision and did not raise an objection to the said decision during the second week objection period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da103048, Apr. 28, 201) and the record reveals that the decision in lieu of conciliation became final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Ma2520, Apr. 28, 201) is obvious or obvious in the records.

If a decision in lieu of conciliation becomes final and conclusive, it shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise, and in such a case, the original litigation shall be deemed to have been withdrawn (see Article 34(4)1 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act and Article 4(3) of the Rules on Civil Conciliation of Civil Disputes). Since the litigation in this case between the plaintiff and the defendant B was conducted even after the final and conclusive decision in lieu of conciliation has been completed, the declaration of the completion of litigation in this case between the plaintiff and the defendant B shall be made.

2. Lawsuits between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, while residing together with the Defendants, left the movable property indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant movable property”) in the Defendant’s residence. Since the Defendants refused to return the instant movable property, they sought the return of each of the said movable property upon a claim for return based on ownership.

B. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are siblings, and the Defendants are married with each other, and the Plaintiff.