채무부존재확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court of first instance cited the “4,100,000 won” of the first instance judgment as “4,100,000 won” of the first instance judgment; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion that is newly brought in the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the Defendant in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for addition of the following determination, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that since the instant association is two cooperatives whose members are the Plaintiff and the Defendant, trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is broken so it is impossible for the Plaintiff to execute liquidation affairs through consultation with the Defendant during the process of dissolution of the association, and that the remaining business of the instant association is only 2.5 billion won of the debt owed to the two main livestock cooperatives. Thus, even before the completion of liquidation affairs, the Plaintiff asserts that even before the completion of liquidation affairs, there is a circumstance in which the members of the association can share the remaining assets fairly and without undergoing liquidation procedures, the Plaintiff
However, even if the liquidation procedure does not proceed because some liquidators do not cooperate in the liquidation procedure, it is separate from taking other measures to carry out the liquidation procedure, such as prohibiting them from performing their duties as liquidator, and appointing a person to act as liquidator, and filing an application with the court for appointment of another person to carry out the liquidation procedure, and it is not possible to immediately claim the distribution of residual property or the settlement amount under the circumstance that the liquidation procedure has not been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da42620, Mar. 23, 1993). Thus, even if a dispute between two partners of a limited partnership is dissolved, it is not sufficient to seek the distribution of residual property without undergoing the liquidation procedure.
(b) If the partnership is dissolved, it shall be reverted to the partnership;