1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.

[Revision] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the “determination on Unauthorized Representation 2.” from Part 4 to Part 3 of Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination as to the assertion of unauthorized Representation

A. The plaintiffs asserted that, at the time of the preparation of the 1 and 2 enforcement deed, they did not grant the plaintiff B the power of attorney to entrust the preparation of the 1 and 2 enforcement deed, the part concerning the plaintiff B in each of the above enforcement deed is null and void, and the compulsory execution against the plaintiff B should not be denied.

The defendant asserts that, at the time of the preparation of the first and second execution deed, the part concerning the plaintiff B in each of the above execution deed is valid, since the plaintiff A obtained a legitimate power of attorney regarding the entrustment of the preparation from the plaintiff B.

B. Determination 1) The indication of recognition of execution that a notarial deed allows a notarial deed to have an executory power as an executory power is an act of litigation against a notary public, and thus a notarial deed is not effective as an executory power in a case where a notarial deed is made upon a commission of an unauthorized agent. Furthermore, it is nothing more than one of the data that can recognize a power of representation, and thus, it does not necessarily mean a power of attorney to issue a bill or a monetary loan contract on behalf of another person, or to commission the preparation of a notarial deed on the bill or monetary loan contract. The burden of proof as to the existence of such power of attorney is not recognized, and the creditor who asserts its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da1814, Jun. 28, 2002; 93Da42047, Feb. 22, 1994).