1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims and the proceedings of the appointed party, extended and reduced in the trial.

1. The defendant's decision on this safety defense is about the existence of the right of attorney and the status of the appointed party of the plaintiff (appointed party) who asserts that the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party of this case are legal representatives, and thus, it is viewed as a defense of this safety.

In full view of the data submitted by the Plaintiff and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant lawsuit was instituted on November 9, 201 by the law firm MF, an attorney, and then resigned from the attorney on April 4, 2012. At the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the letter of delegation of the lawsuit attached to the complaint was signed and sealed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties, and the subsequent letter of appointment of the appointed parties (Appointed Party) was submitted to the court of first instance on April 4, 2012. On the same day, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) delegated the performance of the instant lawsuit to the law firm MF on August 1, 2014, and the fact that the letter of delegation of the lawsuit was submitted to the appellate court on August 1, 2014.

However, in cases 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 belongs to the discretion of the court. However, in cases where the other party is disputed and there is no obvious evidence to prove that the power of attorney is authentic on the record, the court shall investigate whether the power of attorney is defective, such as issuing a certification order with respect to the certification of such power of attorney or conducting an examination as to whether it delegates the power of attorney otherwise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da2139, Feb. 14, 1978).