(2) The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 50 million won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from July 15, 1967 to the full payment.

The court of first and second instances sought a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

In other words, the plaintiffs owned two buildings of 38 square meters and 9 square meters on the 221st day of the building site in Gyeyang-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City owned by the non-party 2 as the non-party's husband and wife. However, the above non-party filed a lawsuit against the above plaintiff claiming removal of the above building and appointed the attorney as the legal representative and tried to purchase 400,000 won at the market price of 221 square meters at the end of the above lawsuit between the non-party and the above non-party. Thus, the defendant's success in the above lawsuit by allowing the above plaintiff to purchase 40,00 won at the market price at the time of the above lawsuit, thereby hindering the conclusion of a settlement, which means that the above plaintiff 2 would not purchase the above building site at a low price of 00 won, and again, the defendant would have suffered damages to the above plaintiff 1 by suspending compulsory execution, 100 won, 400,000 won, 500 won of the above contract.

(2) On the other hand, even if the non-party appointed an attorney-at-law from the defendant who is not an attorney-at-law in the lawsuit for removal of the above house filed against the non-party 2, on the one hand, while appointing an attorney-at-law from the defendant who is not an attorney-at-law while conducting the lawsuit, he/she requested the defendant to deliver money to the defendant and arrange such solicitation. Thus, under Article 1 of the Regulation of Administrative Affairs Act of the plaintiffs, it is evident by the plaintiffs' assertion itself that the plaintiff's assertion itself that he/she requested the defendant to do so. In addition, it is only stipulated that the non-legal person who received or promised to receive money from the non-at-law to do an arbitration, settlement or solicitation, or arranged such act shall be punished only because it is decided by the court's judgment on the litigation case, and it is not possible to depend on the contents of the judgment by making a request by the non-party's intervention in the litigation case, and thus, if the defendant did not act in violation of social order as well as the agreement to compensate for damages.

(3) If so, it is clear that the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the above agreement is valid are without any need to determine other points, and thus, they will be dismissed. Since the original judgment is just in accordance with this conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)