1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by attorneys B, C and D.

With respect to each lawsuit against Defendant 1 and 3, it is based on the defense of this safety, and with respect to the lawsuit against Defendant 2, it is examined whether the lawsuit against Defendant 2 is legitimate or not.

In 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 power of attorney shall belong to the discretion of the court, or in case where the other party is disputed 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, and in case where the person who files a lawsuit as an attorney fails to prove such power of attorney, the court may dismiss such lawsuit on the ground that it is unlawful for the person who has

(see Supreme Court Order 97Ma1574, Sept. 22, 1997). In this case, there is no clear evidence that Defendant 1 and 3 dispute the Plaintiff’s attorney’s attorney’s power of attorney and that the attorney’s power of attorney submitted by the Plaintiff’s attorney together with the written complaint is authentic (in the form of delegation, the Plaintiff’s trade name, address, and representative indicated the Plaintiff’s right of attorney, E and F, but only the Plaintiff’s personal seal is affixed without the Plaintiff’s seal affixed, and the Plaintiff’s attorney’s right of attorney is affixed). This court ordered the Plaintiff’s attorney at the fifth date of pleading on Nov. 26, 2015 to vindicate the existence of the right of attorney at the date of pleading, but the Plaintiff’s attorney did not submit any material as to the existence of the right of attorney until the date of closing argument.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is instituted by a person without the power of attorney, and thus, it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, by applying Articles 108 and 107(2) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act