[1] The legal principle on the proof of the power of attorney

[2] Whether the provisions regarding the certification of the power of attorney and the burden of litigation costs by the unauthorized representative apply mutatis mutandis to the bankruptcy proceedings (affirmative)

[1] The existence of the power of attorney shall be subject to ex officio investigation by the court, and if the power of attorney is a private document, whether the court should issue an order to certify the power of attorney belongs to the discretion of the court. However, if 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 an order to certify the power of attorney or deliberating on whether the power of attorney is actually delegated.

[2] In a case where a person who filed a lawsuit or an appeal as an attorney fails to prove his/her power of representation in spite of an order for authentication by the court, the court may dismiss such lawsuit or appeal on the ground that it is unlawful for him/her to have been filed by a person who has no power of attorney, and at this time the litigation costs shall be borne by such attorney, and the same applies to the case where the attorney expressed his/her intention to resign to the court. The legal principles as to the certification of power of attorney and the burden of litigation costs by the unauthorized representative in the

[1] Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 99 of the Bankruptcy Act, Articles 98 (2) and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 77Da2139 decided Feb. 14, 1978 (Gong1978, 10675)

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 97Ra48 dated June 12, 1997

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The existence of the attorney's power of attorney shall be an ex officio matter of the court. In the event that the power of attorney is a private document, whether the court should issue an order for certification of the power of attorney shall belong to the discretion of the court. However, in case 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 an order for certification of the power of attorney or examining whether the power of attorney is actually delegated (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da2139 delivered on February 14, 1978).

Therefore, if a person who filed a lawsuit or an appeal as an attorney fails to prove his/her power of representation in spite of an order for authentication by the court, the court may dismiss such lawsuit or appeal on the ground that it is unlawful to have been filed by a person who has no power of attorney, and at this time, the litigation cost shall be borne by such attorney (Articles 99 and 98(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the same applies to cases where such attorney expressed his/her intention of resignation to the court.

In addition, the legal principles on the certification of the power of attorney and the burden of litigation cost of the unauthorized representative in these litigation procedures are applied mutatis mutandis to the bankruptcy proceedings (Article 99 of the Bankruptcy Act).

According to the records, the Re-Appellant, an attorney-at-law, filed an appeal in the capacity of the legal representative of the person other than the above case, as to the adjudication of bankruptcy and discontinuation of the government branch of the Seoul District Court's branch where the applicant and the non-applicant are the principal of the case, and the court below denied the re-appellant's right of attorney in the court below. The court below requested the re-appellant to submit a supporting document as to granting his right of attorney, followed the Re-Appellant, and the Re-Appellant submitted a letter of attorney with a unmanned and a seal affixed to his claim that the non-appellant is the principal of the case, but the court below did not have any supporting document to acknowledge that the non-appellant is the principal of the case, and the court below ordered

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the appeal by the principal of this case on the ground that there is no proof of the power of attorney, and it is just to have the re-appellant bear the costs of appeal, and there is no error of law such as violation of the law such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing, and lack

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)