1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs' attorney.

1. We examine ex officio the determination on the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this 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 the power of attorney shall belong to the discretion of the court. Where the other party or the other party contests thereto 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

(See Supreme Court Decision 77Da2139 delivered on February 14, 1978, etc.) Therefore, in a case where a person who files a lawsuit or an appeal as an attorney fails to prove his/her power of representation in spite of an order of authentication issued by the court, the court may dismiss such lawsuit or appeal on the ground that it is illegal to have been filed by a person without the power of attorney.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 97Ma1574, Sept. 22, 1997). Based on the above legal principle, this court ordered the Plaintiffs’ legal representative to submit a notarized letter of delegation of a lawsuit pursuant to Article 89(2) of the Civil Procedure Act on August 30, 2013. However, the Plaintiffs’ legal representative failed to prove his/her power of attorney because it did not take any measure against this.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed by a person who has no power of attorney.

2. In conclusion, we decide to dismiss the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.