1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by both the quoted parties of the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Determination" as to the allegations added by the plaintiffs in this Court, and therefore, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs asserts that the additional payment of the principal in addition to the principal is null and void within the scope exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act when borrowing the money from the defendant.

However, the Interest Limitation Act applies to an arrangement in a loan for consumption for the purpose of money, and the interest in a loan for consumption for money naturally occurs in consideration of the use of money for a certain period of time.

In full view of the purport of each statement in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed to borrow money from the Defendant for the purpose of raising litigation costs, and that “the Plaintiff shall additionally pay the principal amount as compensation or successful cases when executing a judgment of a lawsuit claiming damages filed by the Plaintiff against the Republic of Korea.” Thus, it is difficult to view the Plaintiffs’ additional agreed payment as interest in a monetary loan in that it is not only different depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, but also that the amount determined as the cost of use by the time limit of the execution of the judgment is not proportional to the period of use, but

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiffs asserted that an agreement to receive a certain amount is null and void against the public order and good morals when the defendant won the lawsuit costs against the plaintiff Gap, but there is no special ground to deem it null and void.