1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court alone.

purport.

1. Facts recognized by the records;

A. With respect to the instant lawsuit for which the Plaintiff sought delivery of 1,069 terminal devices listed in the separate sheet against the Defendant, the Intervenor joining the Defendant on October 16, 2017, and the first instance court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation on November 22, 2017, stating that “the Defendant shall deliver 1,069 terminal devices to the Plaintiff.” The said ruling of recommending reconciliation was sent to the Plaintiff on November 28, 2017, and to the Defendant on November 29, 2017, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise any objection to the said decision of recommending reconciliation, but the Intervenor joining the Defendant raised an objection on December 12, 2017.

C. On January 18, 2018, the first instance court rendered a declaration of termination of the lawsuit that “the decision of recommending the settlement was finalized on December 14, 2017, and the lawsuit in this case was terminated.”

2. Determination

A. 1) Effect of an objection against the ruling of recommending reconciliation by the Defendant’s Intervenor 1) where the legal principles related to the legal principles are against the intervenor’s procedural acts, the intervenor’s procedural acts are not effective (Article 76(2) of the Civil Procedure Act); however, “the intervenor’s procedural acts in violation” refers to the case where the intervenor’s procedural acts are clearly in conflict with the intervenor’s procedural acts. 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the review records are as follows: (a) the Defendant did not clearly raise an objection within the period for raising an objection against the above ruling of recommending reconciliation, but did not waive his right to objection; (b) the Intervenor raised an objection against the above ruling of recommending reconciliation within the period for raising an objection; and (c) the Defendant expressed his intent on December 22, 2017 that “the Intervenor’s objection is consented, and the Defendant also raises an objection.”