1. The instant lawsuit was concluded upon September 23, 2015 by this Court’s decision of recommending reconciliation as of September 8, 2015.

When a settlement in court is entered in the protocol, such protocol shall have the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, and shall have the same effect as res judicata effect between the parties. Thus, inasmuch as one of the parties has filed an application for designation of a date for a retrial, the validity shall be asserted only by a lawsuit for a retrial, unless there exist the same reasons as the grounds for invalidation of the final and conclusive judgment. However, when one of the parties has filed an application for designation of a date upon asserting the grounds for invalidation of the protocol of compromise, the court shall make a declaration of termination of the lawsuit by judgment when it is not recognized that there exists any grounds for invalidation after designating a date for a trial to raise the existence of such grounds for invalidation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da6703, Mar. 10, 200). Such grounds are the same as with the protocol of mediation having the same effect as the judicial compromise (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da5868, Mar. 9, 201). When a final and conclusive date has been claimed, the court shall make a subsequent determination of a date of recommendation for compromise.

Pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine, this Court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation on September 8, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant ruling of recommending reconciliation”). The original copy of the instant ruling of recommending reconciliation was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative on September 8, 2015, and the Plaintiff served on the Defendant’s legal representative on September 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the instant ruling of recommending reconciliation. Only the Defendant’s legal representative raised an objection on September 15, 2015, and thereafter, the Defendant’s legal representative AG agent of the Plaintiff’s internal director C was granted permission for the non-permanent act of the acting representative on September 21, 2015 with the permission for the non-permanent act of the acting representative on September 21, 2015.