1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on December 14, 201 by the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation on November 22, 2017.

2...

1. As to the instant claim as of November 22, 2017, the court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the Defendant shall deliver the instant movable property to the Plaintiff. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each party, including the costs incurred by participation in the assistance.” The original copy of the ruling of recommending reconciliation was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative on November 28, 2017, and on November 29, 2017, respectively. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise an objection within two weeks from the date of delivery of the original ruling of recommending reconciliation, which is the statutory period, and the fact that the Defendant filed a written objection against the said ruling on December 12, 2017, which is within the statutory period, is apparent in the record.

2. Where the intervenor's procedural acts are contrary to the intervenor's procedural acts, the intervenor's procedural acts shall not be effective;

(Article 76(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, since the defendant's objection as above violates the defendant's procedural acts intending to have the same effect as judicial reconciliation by failing to file an objection against the above decision of recommending reconciliation within the statutory period, it shall be deemed that such objection is invalid in accordance with the above provision.

The same applies to the case where the Defendant submitted an amendment to the effect that “the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion for objection as well as the Defendant’s motion for a reconciliation recommendation” in this court on December 22, 2017, which is obvious that the right to raise an objection against the said ruling was extinguished due to the lapse of the statutory period.

If so, the above decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive on December 14, 2017, where it is clear that two weeks, a statutory period, have passed since November 29, 2017, when the original copy of the decision was delivered to both the plaintiff and the defendant last.

In addition, an objection against the ruling of recommending reconciliation made by the defendant in the form of submitting the above amendment shall be dismissed as it is evident that the right to request the ruling is extinguished.

3...