공사잔대금
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants in the judgment is modified as follows.
The Defendants are the Defendant B of the first instance trial.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is running a building interior business in the trade name of G.
On April 6, 2016, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B of the first instance trial”) and the Defendants concluded a partnership agreement with the content of operating a club under the trade name “I” (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) on the H-based H-based building (hereinafter “instant building”). According to the partnership agreement, Defendant of the first instance trial and Defendant C are to bear the facility investment cost.
On October 31, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to contract the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).
The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on or around December 2, 2016, and received KRW 51,450,000 from the Defendant of the first instance trial.
[Reasons for Recognition] If an association obligation is borne by the act of commercial activity for all union members as a result of the act of commercial activity, it shall be reasonable to apply Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act to determine the joint and several liability of the defendant of the first instance court and the defendants, who are union members, in accordance with Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). At the time when the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant of the first instance trial to perform the instant construction project by concluding the instant construction contract with the Defendant, the Defendants and the Defendant of the first instance trial were in a partnership business relationship. The Defendants and the Defendant of the first instance trial agreed to bear the costs of facility investment when entering into a partnership business agreement with the Defendants and the Defendant of the first instance trial, as seen earlier.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendants entrusted the authority to conclude the contract of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the building of this case to the defendant of the first instance trial, and the defendant of the first instance trial needs to perform the business of the Dong that constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act.