Where the contents of the judicial compromise violate the mandatory provisions, measures for remedy therefor.

Where a judicial compromise has been achieved, even when the contents thereof are in violation of the mandatory provisions, no claim for invalidation shall be made unless the retrial is provided by filing a request for the retrial.

Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Mack-skin

E.S.C.

Seoul High Court Decision 60No1419 delivered on July 18, 1961, Seoul High Court Decision 200Da1419 delivered on July 18, 1961

We reverse the original judgment.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's main office is dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the protocol shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment when the waiver or recognition of the claim for compromise is entered in the protocol. Accordingly, even if the contents of the protocol are in violation of compulsory provisions when a judicial compromise has been formed, it is merely a defect in the judicial compromise. Therefore, in this case, a member who is unable to assert the invalidation except for the remedy upon filing a request for retrial is already a precedent. In this case, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit was already made in order to confirm the ownership of standing timber and the claim for the delivery of standing timber as stated in the original judgment established on January 19, 1954 between the original defendant on the ground that it is obvious in the record that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the same reason as stated above, and therefore, the original judgment received the plaintiff's claim for a factual compromise on the ground as stated in its reasoning does not contain an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the settlement in court, and thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that Article 97 of the Civil Procedure Act is inconsistent with the judgment.

This decision is delivered with the unanimous opinion of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Dog-won (Presiding Justice)