1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2016, the Plaintiff filed a criminal conciliation with the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant stolen the lecture pipes owned by the Plaintiff (Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office 2016 type No. 37094), and on August 1, 2016, the criminal conciliation was established with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall submit an agreement to the Plaintiff if the Defendant returned 1,300 lecture pipes to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2016.”

B. The Defendant did not return to the Plaintiff the said 1,300 pipe pipe.

C. The above strong pipe price is 14,000 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence No. 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the reconciliation contract under the Civil Act, where the Plaintiff and the Defendant return 1,300 steel pipes to compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s property damage in the above criminal conciliation procedure and closing the dispute relationship (hereinafter “the settlement contract of this case”).

(2) It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant concluded a compromise contract in this case. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not return to the Plaintiff a pipe 1,300, and the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 18,200,000 won (i.e., 14,000 won x 1,300 won x 1,300 won) under the compromise contract in this case, and to dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s duty of performance from October 1, 2016 to October 28, 2017, which is the date the first instance judgment was rendered, until November 28, 2017, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and from the next day, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. The Defendant alleged that there was no theft of the Plaintiff’s lecture pipe. However, if a compromise contract is concluded, barring any special circumstance, whether the relationship of rights and obligations based on the previous legal relationship is extinguished, and whether the previous legal relationship between the parties to the contract was terminated.