The costs of summary appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (the intermediate confirmation plaintiff, the appointed party) and the appointed party.

According to Articles 422(2) and 390(1) proviso of the Civil Procedure Act, which are applied mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, with respect to a final judgment rendered by a court of first instance, other than the high court, with respect to an administrative litigation, a summary appeal may be filed only when both parties have agreed not to file an appeal after the final judgment, by reserving the right to file

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du9582 delivered on February 11, 2003). In this case, the agreement is necessarily required in writing as a result of the application of Article 29(2) of the Civil Procedure Act by Article 390(2) of the same Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da67921 Decided December 12, 2013. However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) did not submit a document on the agreement under the proviso of Article 390(1) of the Civil Procedure Act while filing a summary appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, the instant non-pharmaceutical appeal is unlawful and thus, it cannot be corrected.

Therefore, without any need to decide on the non-pharmaceuticalal grounds of appeal, the appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is dismissed, and the costs of the non-pharmaceuticalal appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.