1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on April 18, 2017 following the final and conclusive ruling of recommending reconciliation on March 24, 2017 of this Court.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 24, 2017, the instant court rendered a decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”) with the same content as that indicated in the attached Form in the instant lawsuit (hereinafter “instant decision”).

B. Article 11(Electronic Service or Notice)1(1) of the Act on the Use, etc. of Electronic Documents in Civil Procedure, Etc. (Electronic Service or Notification) provides that a person to be served or notified falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a court official may electronically deliver or notify the electronic information processing system to the person to be served or notified:

1., 2.

3. In cases where there exists an attorney, service or notification under paragraph (1) shall be made to the attorney.

(3) Service under paragraph (1) shall be made by registering the electronic documents to be served by a junior administrative officer, etc. in the electronic data processing system and electronically notifying the person to be served

(4) In cases falling under paragraph (3), the service shall be deemed to have been served when an electronic document recorded is confirmed.

Provided, That if the record is not confirmed within one week from the date of notification, it shall be deemed to have been served on the date when one week from the date of notification of the record.

Pursuant to the proviso to paragraph (4), the original copy of the decision to recommend reconciliation in this case was deemed to have been served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative and the Defendant’s legal representative at April 40, 2017.

C. On April 18, 2017, the Defendant filed an objection against the instant decision of recommending reconciliation.

2. Determination

A. An objection against a ruling of recommending compromise may be raised by submitting a written objection to the court that made the ruling of recommending compromise within 2 weeks from the date on which the party received a service of the original copy of the written ruling (Articles 226(1) and 227(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and when no objection is raised within the aforementioned period, the ruling of recommending compromise shall have the same effect as the judicial compromise, which

(Article 231 subparagraph 1 of the same Act). On the other hand, the period shall be the day, week, and