물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
The co-defendant A Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial on the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination (hereinafter “instant agricultural partnership”) is obligated to pay 3,05,700 won to the Plaintiff for attempted rice distribution.
However, pursuant to Article 16(7) of the former Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (amended by Act No. 12961, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act”), the provisions of the Civil Act governing associations shall apply mutatis mutandis to agricultural partnership corporations. Since the aforementioned obligation to the Plaintiff of the instant agricultural partnership against the Plaintiff of the rice distribution was owed through commercial activities for all members, the Defendants, a member of the instant agricultural partnership, are also obligated to pay the said amount of rice distribution to the Plaintiff, jointly with the instant agricultural partnership pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.
B. First of all, we examine whether the legal doctrine on partnership under the Civil Act, which regards the obligations of partnership as the obligations of partnership members, applies mutatis mutandis to the legal doctrine that regards the obligations of partnership members as the obligations of partnership members.
Article 16(7) of the former Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act, which was in force at the time when the instant agricultural partnership was supplied with rice spawn from the Plaintiff (from November 7, 2013 to May 12, 2015), provides that “Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, with respect to agricultural partnership and fisheries partnership, the provisions on partnership under the Civil Act concerning agricultural partnership shall apply mutatis mutandis.”
However, it is reasonable to view that the above provision is the purport that the provisions concerning partnership under the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an agricultural partnership within the extent not contrary to its nature, unless otherwise provided for in the above Act (see Supreme Court Order 2015Ma813, Sept. 14, 2015). In light of the following circumstances, the legal principle that “a partner’s obligation” refers to a partner’s obligation as an entity separate from a partner, does not apply mutatis mutandis to an agricultural partnership that becomes the subject of independent rights and obligations