양수금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts under the foundation of facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5 (including the branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
Agricultural Partnership D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) is a juristic person established on November 14, 2007 for the purpose of agricultural management, joint shipment of agricultural products, tourism, etc., and Defendant B is its director, and Defendant C is its representative director.
B. (1) On November 29, 2007, E entered into an agreement that “E” shall pay 80 million won of the price for the work performed by E within one month after completion of the work, and that “E” shall pay 80 million won of the price for the work performed by E within one month after completion of the work.
(hereinafter “The instant contract for the payment of the construction cost” refers to “the instant contract for the payment of the construction cost,” and C did not pay the said construction cost despite the said contract for the payment of the construction cost, and E filed a lawsuit against D on August 12, 2008, seeking payment of KRW 800 million for the said construction cost, and won in full on July 23, 2009 (Korean District Court Decision 2008Da7588, the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff received the instant claim for the construction cost from E on February 12, 2015, and each of the instant claim was served on April 30, 2015 on the Defendant B, and on May 29, 2015 on the Defendant C, respectively.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim is a partner’s obligation, and if a partner’s obligation is to be borne by an act that constitutes a commercial activity for all members, the joint and several liability of the partner is recognized by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919, Mar. 13, 1998). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the obligation is to a farming association association