회사에 관한 소송
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
As to the instant case cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is as follows, in addition to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part 3. Judgment No. 20 of the first instance court's decision No. 4. 20 shall be stated as follows.
3. Determination
A. Article 16-16 of the Certified Tax Accountant Act provides that the provisions relating to limited liability companies in the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to tax accounting corporations, and Articles 578 and 376 of the Commercial Act provide that a lawsuit for revocation of a resolution may be brought to the effect that the resolution of the general meeting is in violation
Plaintiff
The summary of the argument is that Article 30(2) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation provides that “The remaining property shall be repaid with preference to the corporate debt and distributed to the members in proportion to the number of contribution units of each member” at the time of liquidation, but the resolution of this case, which approved the settlement of accounts excluding goodwill from the allocation of the remaining property,
B. In the event that a business entity has a profit-making power exceeding the normal profit ratio of the same kind of company, it is expected that the business entity with such profit-making power will be paid for that part, as a matter of course, if the business entity becomes the object of transaction.
Therefore, when managing an enterprise with goodwill as a partnership business and one of the members withdraws from the partnership business relationship, he/she shall naturally include his/her goodwill in evaluating the shares of the withdrawn partner in the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da44839, Feb. 14, 1997; 2004Da49693, Mar. 9, 2006; 2004Da49693, 49709, etc.). The same applies to cases where a tax accounting corporation becomes the object of a transaction.
However, in the case of this case, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, the defendant dated October 31, 2017.