Of them, the part concerning Defendant Limited Partnership G is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

In a case where a legal entity is a party, whether the representative of the legal entity has legitimate power of representation or not is a requirement for litigation and is subject to ex officio investigation by the court. Thus, if there are circumstances to doubt the legality of the power of representation based on the documents already submitted, the court has a duty to examine

Article 59 (former part) and Article 60 of the Civil Procedure Act, which apply mutatis mutandis to a representative of a juristic person under Article 64 of the same Act, are to be applied mutatis mutandis to the granting of a litigation capacity, authority of legal representation, or authority required for procedural acts. In a case where there are defects in the granting of a litigation capacity, the court shall order to correct them within a fixed period. After conducting procedural acts by a person having defects in the granting of a litigation capacity, authority of legal representation, or authority required for procedural acts, where the revised party or legal representative ratified them, such procedural acts shall take effect retroactively from the time when they were conducted.

Therefore, if there is any defect in the power of representation in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, the court has a duty to order the correction for a fixed period unless it is evident that the defect cannot be corrected. The correction of the power of representation can also be allowed in the appellate

(2) According to the records, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by indicating the representative member of the Defendant Company as Defendant H on May 23, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2376, Mar. 28, 2003). The record reveals that, on behalf of the Defendant Company, Defendant H delegated his/her agent as the representative member of the Defendant Company, and the attorney was acting as the representative member of the Defendant Company; on behalf of the Defendant Company; on July 16, 2014, the Chuncheon District Court rendered a judgment that declared the forfeiture of the Defendant H’s representative authority and executive authority as to the Defendant Company on July 16, 2014; and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 2, 2014.