손해배상(기)
1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs' attorney.
1. We examine ex officio the determination on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case.
Where the power of attorney is a private document, whether or not the court shall issue a certification order with respect to the certification of the power of attorney shall belong to the discretion of the court. Where the other party or the other party contests thereto and there is no obvious evidence that the power of attorney is authentic in the records, the court shall investigate whether or not the power of attorney is defective, such as issuing a certification order with respect to the certification of such power of attorney or conducting other examination as to whether the power of attorney is properly delegated
(See Supreme Court Decision 77Da2139 delivered on February 14, 1978, etc.). Thus, in a case where a person who files a lawsuit or an appeal as an attorney fails to prove his/her power of representation in spite of a court’s order of authentication, the court may dismiss the lawsuit or appeal on the ground that it is unlawful to have been filed by a person who has no power of attorney.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 97Ma1574, Sept. 22, 1997). Based on the above legal doctrine, this Court ordered the Plaintiffs’ legal representatives to submit a letter of delegation of litigation under Article 89(2) of the Civil Procedure Act on August 30, 2013.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs’ legal representative failed to take a measure against this and failed to prove his power of representation.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed by a person who has no power of attorney.
2. In conclusion, we decide to dismiss the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.