1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The legality of an objection to subsequent completion;

A. According to the records of the instant lawsuit, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) With respect to the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff entered the location of the complex as Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, without stating the representative of the Defendant in the complaint, and specified the representative of the Defendant as D on January 25, 2017 through the amendment made on April 27, 2017, and corrected the representative of the Defendant C into E through the amendment made on April 27, 2017. (2) The court considered the representative of the Defendant C as E and the location of the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Gangdong-gu, and served on October 26, 2017, “The Defendant C shall be paid to the Plaintiff KRW 33,00,000 from January 1, 20 to December 19, 2016, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 10% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to December 19, 2016 to the date on which the original copy of the Reconciliation Recommendation was served to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2017.

(2) On December 4, 2017, Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the court below's decision to recommend the settlement of this case" was made on December 6, 2017, 2017, and the representative of the defendant among the defendant is not E but G. The location is not Seoul Gangdong-gu, but Namyang-si, and thus, the existence of the decision to recommend the settlement of this case was not known to E, and the existence of the decision to recommend the settlement of this case was known to the plaintiff around December 4, 2017. The court below's decision to recommend the settlement of this case was rejected in compliance with the objection period against the above decision to recommend the settlement of this case due to a cause not attributable to the defendant among the defendants. (b) The court below's decision to recommend the settlement of this case was affirmed in accordance with Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act.