The appeal is dismissed.

All costs of appeal are assessed against E.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Generally, it is an example that part of the document is signed and sealed and delivered in a state of completion. As such, there was a blank blank part at the time of delivery of the document and that it was supplemented ex post facto, the originator should prove that it was corrected.

However, the facts that some of the contents of the document was filled after the fact that it was proved that the blank part was filled after the fact that it was duly delegated shall be proved by the party who asserts the effect of the entry in the blank part.

(2) On August 22, 2013, the lower court held that: (a) in this case where: (b) E received a letter of delegation from F,O, S, and T (hereinafter “T”) a sectional owner of a building A; (c) subsequently there is a dispute as to whether the authorized person was properly supplemented by the authority that was duly delegated in filling the name, etc. in the item of his/her name, etc., on the part of the authorized person column; (d) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that E supplemented by the authority that was duly delegated by F,O, S, and T; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise; and (e) on the contrary, the lower court, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s arbitrary act was arbitrarily stated in the column of mandatory who was delegated by F,O, S, and T (hereinafter “T”); and (e) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s voting right cannot be seen as invalid by the Plaintiff’s resolution that was the representative of the building A; and (e) the latter’s voting right cannot be seen as invalid by the Plaintiff’s voting right.