1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, in addition to the part written by the court of the first instance as to this case, since it is identical to the part written by the court of the first instance in addition to the part written by the court of the second instance as to this case. The part written by the court of the first instance

B. Paragraph 3 of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance) (Article 20 of the 20th to 14th 20 of the 20th 14th

(3) Next, we examine whether the Defendant is obligated to pay interest to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the instant lending agreement. According to Article 55 of the Commercial Act, if a merchant lends money to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the said lending agreement, the legal interest can be claimed, and even if the merchant claims for the interest payment by asserting that there was a monetary loan for consumption, even if the agreed interest rate is not acknowledged, the purport of seeking legal interest under the Commercial Act is included (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73072, Mar. 15, 2007). In this case, the instant lending agreement made between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is a merchant’s lending of money to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant is obligated to pay interest at a rate of 6% per annum, which is the legal interest rate under the Commercial Act, even after the termination of the instant lending agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the interest on the instant loan under the proviso to paragraph (1) of this case’s loan agreement with the Plaintiff.