The costs of summary appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

An appeal may be filed with respect to a final judgment rendered by the High Court and that rendered by the collegiate division of the district court in the second instance, and with respect to a final judgment in the first instance, it is evident that both parties are entitled to make an extraordinary appeal only when both parties agree not to file an appeal after reserving the right to file an appeal and not to file an appeal, in light of the provisions of Article 422 and the proviso to Article 390 (

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da7680, Apr. 28, 1995; 2013Da67921, Dec. 12, 2013). In such cases, the agreement is a result of applying mutatis mutandis Article 29(2) of the Civil Procedure Act pursuant to Article 390(2).

However, since the plaintiffs 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 court of first instance, the non-pharmaceutical appeal of this case is unlawful and thus it cannot be corrected.

Therefore, without any need to decide on the non-pharmaceuticalal grounds of appeal, all of the plaintiffs' non-permanent appeals are dismissed, and the costs of the non-permanent appeal are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.