Whether failure to issue a certification order on the power of attorney is illegal even though the power of attorney is disputed.

Where the other party contests the power of attorney of an attorney and there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge that the power of attorney is authentic on the records, the other party shall examine whether or not the plaintiff delegates the power of attorney, regardless of the order to certify the power of attorney or otherwise.

Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da860,861 Delivered on December 22, 1970

Attorney Lee Young-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Han-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 77Na53 delivered on October 7, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant-appellant is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant denied the plaintiff's attorney's power, according to the plaintiff's statement in the plaintiff's letter of delegation of lawsuit filed in the records, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that he delegated his attorney's power to file a lawsuit in relation to this case to the attorney Seocheon-D, and

However, the existence of the power of attorney of the court is a matter of ex officio by the court, and in the event that the power of attorney is a private document, whether or not the court orders the certification of such power of attorney shall belong to the discretion of the court. However, in the case where the defendant disputes the power of attorney of the plaintiff and there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge that the power of attorney is authentic on the records, the court below should have investigated further whether or not the power of attorney of the plaintiff is defective by examining whether or not the plaintiff delegates the power of attorney of the plaintiff, regardless of the order to certify the power of attorney or otherwise, regardless of the fact that the court below recognized the delegation of the power of attorney by the above power of attorney which is simply bound on the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the certification of the power of attorney and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. Accordingly, the court below's decision on this issue has merit.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)