1. The appeal by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

1. On September 21, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and D seeking damages, etc. due to nonperformance of the obligation to repair defects in respect of the building of this case under the 2004Gahap1887, which is subject to quasi-deliberation. On September 21, 2005, the conciliation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was prepared after the Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs’ legal representative, and the Defendant appeared, respectively, and the conciliation under the 3 conciliation clause was established.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 and 22, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's assertion was written as if the defendant had not appeared on September 21, 2005, and as if the defendant had been present on the date of mediation, the mediation statement of this case was prepared as if it had been completely different from the defendant's intent.

In addition, the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 26, 2007 by filing a lawsuit against the plaintiffs around 2006 against D and G, who are the defendant's spouse, as the defendant's spouse, for the return of the lease deposit under 2006Kapo-Ga24269, the Gwangju District Court rendered a favorable judgment on June 26, 2007. The contents of the judgment are inconsistent with the contents of the instant conciliation protocol.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)3, 6, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant protocol of mediation.

3. Determination

A. Whether it falls under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (if there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority required for conducting procedural acts by a representative), the fact that the defendant is stated in the instant protocol as being present at the meeting is as seen earlier.

Although the defendant alleged that the conciliation protocol of this case was prepared in a false manner although he did not appear on the date of the above conciliation, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant did not appear on the date of conciliation in the case subject to quasi-adjudication D, which was a co-defendant with the defendant, and therefore, the conciliation of this case.