beta
Text
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
3.A claim filed by this court.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court is stated in this part of the facts and the summary of the parties' arguments are as follows: (a) the part of the fourth 3th tier judgment in the first instance judgment, "at present..... currently pending pending proceedings", and the part of " October 3, 2016" in the fourth 5th 4th 5th 4th 5th 2016, except for the case where " October 6, 2016", the part of the second 7 to 6th 9th 6th 7th 2th 7th 7th 6th 9 below (the grounds of the first instance judgment and the grounds of the second 1th 1st 2nd 2nd 9th 2nd 9th 2nd 9.
2. Determination
A. 1) If the authenticity of the power of attorney is withdrawn by his seal, barring any special circumstance, the authenticity of the seal shall be presumed to have been made, i.e., the act of affixing the seal is based on the will of the person who prepared the document. On the other hand, when the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been made, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been made pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, such presumption is no longer maintained in cases where the act of affixing the seal is proved to have been made without being based on the will of the person other than the person who prepared the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da24770, Mar. 10, 1995). However, the fact that the seal affixed on September 26, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “instant power of attorney”) by the deceased’s seal affixed on the power of attorney (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da24770, Sept. 26, 2016).
Furthermore, while the J separately stored the original power of this case, the letter of this case attached with a copy of the delegation of this case, and the date of issuance of the deceased’s certificate of personal seal impression attached to the letter of this case together with the letter of this case was set on November 25, 2014, earlier than the date of preparation of the letter of delegation of this case.
However, such;