1. The appeal by the applicant (quasi-Review Plaintiff) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant (quasi-Review Plaintiff).

3...

1. On November 29, 2012, the applicant for quasi-Review (hereinafter “quasi-Review Plaintiff”) and five other persons filed an application for the telephone damage against the respondent (the quasi-Review Defendant; hereinafter “ quasi-Review Defendant”) with the Incheon District Court (hereinafter “sub-Review Defendant”) (hereinafter “instant telephone damage”), the attorney-at-law and the quasi-Review Defendant, who is five attorneys, from the quasi-Review Plaintiff and the five attorneys, were present on the date of the filing of the claim for the refund of deposit deposit, and made a compromise in accordance with the attached settlement clause (hereinafter “instant protocol”) on March 11, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, significant fact to the court of the trial, and purport of whole pleading

2. Judgment on the assertion by the quasi-Review Plaintiff

A. The conciliation protocol of this case by the quasi-Review Plaintiff is prepared by C attorney who was not granted the power of attorney from the quasi-Review Plaintiff on behalf of the quasi-Review Plaintiff and constitutes grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the part against the quasi-Review Plaintiff in the conciliation protocol of this case as to the quasi-Review Plaintiff should be revoked, and the request for filing a lawsuit by the quasi-Review Plaintiff should be dismissed.

B. Determination 1) Generally, the power of attorney has the burden of proving its existence to the person who asserts the existence, but in the case of a quasi-deliberation lawsuit, the said power of attorney has the burden of proof as a ground for quasi-deliberation (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da22436, Dec. 23, 1996). 2) In light of the following: (a) the statement of evidence No. 6 and the fact-finding inquiry of the first instance court C attorney-at-law in the first instance court’s case’s telephone, C attorney who represented the quasi-Appellant in the instant lawsuit’s telephone, has the burden of proof against the quasi-Appellant and the quasi-Appellant in the name of the quasi-Appellant in the name of the quasi-Appellant and the quasi-Appellant.