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

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is that "4,100,000 won" under the seventh ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is "4,100,000 won" and the plaintiff's assertion that is newly delivered in the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the defendant among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination, the relevant part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant association is two cooperatives whose members are the Plaintiff and the Defendant, so it is impossible for the Plaintiff to perform liquidation affairs through consultation with the Defendant during the process of dissolution. Moreover, since the remaining business of the instant association is merely a debt of 2.5 billion won to both main livestock industry cooperatives, even before the completion of liquidation affairs, there is a circumstance where the equitable allocation of residual assets among the union members can be ensured without undergoing liquidation procedures. However, even if some liquidators fail to cooperate with the liquidation procedures, it is apart from taking other measures to prevent them from performing their duties as a liquidator and appoint a person to act as a liquidator, and it is not possible to immediately claim a distribution or settlement of residual assets under the circumstance where the liquidation procedures have not been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da42620, Mar. 23, 1993). Thus, even if the partnership is dissolved, it is not a dispute between the union members and the remaining assets of the association itself (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da4220, Mar. 23, 1993).

B. If a partnership is dissolved, if the business affairs, such as repayment of obligations that have been jointly reverted to the partnership, have not been completed, such business affairs ought to undergo liquidation procedures in principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da47084, 47091, Oct. 11, 2013): Provided, however, a partnership may seek distribution of residual assets without undergoing liquidation procedures, only where special circumstances exist where a fair distribution of residual assets is possible among partners even if such business affairs, such as repayment, etc., have not been completed.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s dissolution of the instant association constitutes a case where the Plaintiff is able to claim a fair distribution of residual assets without undergoing the liquidation procedure, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the dissolution of the instant association. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant cannot confirm the existence and scope of the settlement amount between the plaintiff and the other party, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant must be dismissed as it is without merit. The part concerning the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendant is justified as it is with merit. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Song-dae

Judges Cho Jong-hee