1. The quasi-appeal of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The establishment of the protocol of quasi-examination, the filing of a lawsuit for quasi-examination, and the filing of a lawsuit against the deceased on the second (round June 30, 2015) of the Seoul Central District Court 2015Kahap8976 case for ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). At the date of pleading, the deceased’s legal representative was present at the law firm S, where T was the deceased and accepted the plaintiffs’ claim by the method of stating that “the claim of this case is accepted.” Accordingly, the junior administrative officer prepared a protocol of recognition and recognition of the instant case (hereinafter “the protocol of recognition and recognition of this case”) on June 12, 2017; the deceased filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs on June 12, 2017, seeking the cancellation, etc. of the protocol of recognition and recognition of this case (hereinafter “the lawsuit of quasi-examination”). The Defendants’ death of the deceased on June 18, 2018, during which the lawsuit of quasi-examination was pending, was evident that the Defendants died of the deceased on the deceased’s.

2. Judgment as to the existence of a ground for quasi-examination

A. The Defendants’ assertion did not conclude a delegation contract with the law firm S and its affiliated attorneys with regard to the instant lawsuit, and did not confer the power of representation on the defeat of the claimant.

Nevertheless, at the date of the second pleading of the lawsuit in this case, TW, an attorney-at-law affiliated with the law firm, without the power of attorney, declared the refusal of appellant.

Therefore, the letter of recognition and recognition of this case has a ground for quasi-examination corresponding to the "if there is any defect in the granting of authority of attorney or any authority necessary for the procedural acts by a representative" under Articles 461 and 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, the above protocol of recognition and recognition shall be revoked.

B. In general, the power of attorney has the burden of proof to the person who asserts the existence, but in the case of quasi-deliberation, the power of attorney is defective as a ground for quasi-adjudication.