1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On September 21, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant present each on the date of mediation and the conciliation as stated in the attached Form 3 (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was prepared on September 21, 2005, where the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant for quasi-examination.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant and the Gwangju District Court rendered no original agreement in the case No. 2004Gahap1887, and the defendant appeared at the mediation date on September 21, 2005 of the quasi-examination subject case and responded to the mediation of the circumstances that "The amount of KRW 67 million shall be paid within one week, and the amount of KRW 28 million shall be paid within one week," and the mediation statement of this case was completely different.

In addition, on June 26, 2007, the judgment in favor of C and D was rendered on June 26, 2007 in the case of the lease deposit against the Defendant and E filed by the Plaintiff’s spouse C and his wife D against the Defendant and E, which is the related case, and became final and conclusive around that time. The contents of the judgment are inconsistent with the conclusion of the case and the quasi-adjudication of the Gwangju District Court 2004Gahap1887 case and the case subject to review.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)6, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant protocol of conciliation.

3. Determination

A. As to whether Article 451(1)6 (a) and 9 (a) of the Civil Procedure Act fall under Article 451(1)6 (when a document or any other article used as evidence of a judgment has been forged or altered) of the same Act, the Plaintiff asserted that the document or any other article used as evidence of a judgment was forged or altered) and that the protocol was concluded differently from the protocol of this case by attending the date of conciliation of the quasi-Review Case on September 21, 2005,

In addition, if the matters agreed upon between the parties are entered on the date of mediation, the mediation protocol shall have the same effect as the judicial compromise, and such mediation shall have the same effect as the judicial compromise.