1. The quasi-examination of the defendant (quasi-examination plaintiff) is dismissed;

2. The costs of quasi-examination are assessed against the defendant.

1. The facts under the recognition are either apparent in the record or obvious to this Court.

On October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for delivery of a building with Seoul Central District Court 2015dan172504, and the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on May 17, 2016.

B. On July 15, 2016, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2016Na4104 (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”). On July 19, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for legal aid with the above court No. 2016Ka-gu1387 (hereinafter “Court”) and appointed attorneys E as a legal representative on August 10, 2016.

C. On January 9, 2017, the appellate court referred the instant case to the conciliation under Article 6 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor (hereinafter “Succession Intervenor”) filed an application for intervention by succession on February 27, 2017.

On the date of mediation conducted on February 28, 2017, the following mediation (hereinafter referred to as “instant mediation”) was established by the attorney F, the defendant, and the defendant’s attorney E-at-law present at the trial of the plaintiff, the succeeding intervenor, the plaintiff, and the succeeding intervenor:

prescribed provisions

1. The Defendant shall deliver the instant building to the succeeding intervenor by August 31, 2017.

2. The successor intervenor shall withhold to the defendant all monetary claims such as rent until the above delivery date, and shall waive the remainder of the claims.

3. The costs of lawsuit and the costs of mediation shall be borne by each of the parties in the first and second instances.

2. Judgment on quasi-adjudications

A. The Defendant’s defense E constituted the instant conciliation without authority on the date of the instant conciliation. Therefore, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant conciliation protocol.

B. Generally, the right of representation in a lawsuit has the burden of proving the existence to the person who asserts the existence, but in the case of a quasi-adjudication lawsuit, the defect of the right of representation in the lawsuit becomes a cause for quasi-adjudication, and the burden of

Supreme Court Decision 95Da22436 delivered on December 23, 1996