1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant asserts that, at the time of the lawsuit of this case, C, the representative of the plaintiff, is not a legitimate representative of the plaintiff, and while the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court of first instance, the representative of the plaintiff was changed to D, but no evidence exists to deem that the plaintiff had ratified the lawsuit of this case as legitimate after the above change

B. The existence of the power of attorney at the stage of representative action is a litigation requirement that is subject to ex officio investigation by the court, and where the existence of such fact is unclear, the principle of the burden of proof shall apply to the above ex officio investigation. In light of the fact that it is favorable for the plaintiff to receive a judgment on the merits, the burden of proof for the legal requirements that are subject to ex officio

As such, the plaintiff must prove that C was duly and effectively appointed as the representative of the plaintiff in this case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da39301, Jul. 25, 1997; 2007Ma224, Jun. 29, 2007; 2007Ma224, Jun. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, any procedural act conducted by the representative of an unincorporated association shall have retroactive effect when the representative who has lawfully acquired the representative qualification confirms the procedural act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da2527, Mar. 14, 1997; 2010Da77583, Dec. 9, 2010);

C. In the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff is a legitimate representative, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that C, claiming the Plaintiff’s representative, as the Plaintiff’s representative in the instant lawsuit, is not eligible to represent the Plaintiff. However, according to the overall purport of each written and oral argument, the Plaintiff is below the shop owner or tenant of the instant building, who was appointed as the Plaintiff’s representative during the instant lawsuit, around February 2015.