1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasons why this court should explain are below.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of a part as stated in the same paragraph, it shall be quoted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

B. The following is added to the part of the first instance judgment, which is dismissed or added, No. 6 of the first instance judgment, and No. 4 of the said judgment.

(A) Even if D did not confirm the above text message, the Plaintiff’s declaration of withdrawal of the power of attorney against D becomes effective when D reaches D. As long as D’s above text message was received normally from D’s smartphone around February 25, 2014, it is reasonable to view that D’s declaration of intention was in an objective condition that D’s contents can be known by social norms. Thus, the Intervenor’s assertion on this part is without merit, even if it is without merit) No. 61 of the first instance judgment, and subsequent to the second instance judgment, the following is added.

F) The Intervenor asserts to the effect that, as the Intervenor did not express his/her intent to withdraw his/her power of representation to C, C’s power of representation is valid, and even if his/her power of representation was extinguished, the Intervenor constitutes a bona fide third person under Article 129 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Intervenor cannot oppose the Intervenor on the ground that his/her power of representation was extinguished. However, the Intervenor’s declaration of intent to withdraw power of representation may be made to the other party, and as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Intervenor knew or could have known that his/her power of representation was extinguished for the Plaintiff. As such, the Intervenor does not constitute a bona fide third person under Article 129 of the Civil Act.) Further, the Intervenor asserts to the effect that the Intervenor did not raise any objection for a long time after the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of this case, the Intervenor’

On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff received the instant notice from the Intervenor and immediately thereafter.