1. In full view of the admitted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) since around 1993, the Nonparty and the Defendants: (b) purchased rice jointly from the Plaintiff, a wholesaler, in accordance with the Non-Party’s proposal from December 1996; and (c) sold the price to the Non-Party; and (d) distributed the price to the non-party by means of payment to the Plaintiff; (b) the non-party and the Defendants first received a package delivery from the Plaintiff 20 km store; (c) the non-party and the Defendants received a direct delivery from each of the Defendant’s stores; (d) the non-party established a rice storage and packing factory with the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○’s store, which had been supplied by the Plaintiff on behalf of the non-party 1, 200 km store; and (e) the non-party established the Defendants’ respective business with each of the above 1,000 or 200 won, respectively, on behalf of the Plaintiff ○○○○○ store.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence which misleads the facts against the rules of evidence.

2. Based on the above facts found, the lower court determined that the Defendants, as merchants, engaged in rice sales business by jointly purchasing rice with the Nonparty in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○ and selling it to each person. This has the nature of an association under the Civil Act. Since the Nonparty or Defendant 1’s obligation to purchase rice from the Plaintiff as a business performance of the association was the partnership’s obligation to pay the purchase price for rice for all members, the Defendants, as partners, are jointly and severally liable to pay the purchase price for rice as indicated in the judgment of the Plaintiff.

A. According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the non-party or the defendants formed a Dong company to be supplied with rice at a low price and agreed to jointly purchase rice directly from a rice wholesaler, and the non-party and the defendants requested the plaintiff to supply rice. The non-party and the defendants jointly purchased rice at their own stores to sell it on their own account and deposit it to the non-party's passbook, and to pay the non-party the price to the plaintiff. The non-party and the defendants are required to store and pack the rice jointly purchased. Thus, since all the members agreed to establish a "○○○○○○" as a member of the association to establish a rice storage and packing company, even if some members did not actually pay for the establishment cost, the non-party and the defendants invested in the amount of rice purchase and the expenses for the establishment of ○○○○○○○○.

B. Meanwhile, although there is no limit on the type and nature of the business of a cooperative, it should be a business of all members of the cooperative. Even if the above method is jointly purchased and packed in small quantities at a factory established with the above method, if buyers sold the rice at their respective stores operated on their own account, it cannot be said that they operated a rice sales business as a partnership even if they used a '5 store name indicating the name of Dong in the area where each place of business is located at their respective places of business.' In this regard, the court below erred in the determination that "the defendant and the non-party jointly purchased rice and sold the rice," and therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit. However, according to the above facts, since the defendants and the non-party jointly purchased the rice at low price from the plaintiff ○○○ through 20 km and then sold the rice to the non-party members of the cooperative, the non-party members of the cooperative's joint business and the non-party members of the Association, the non-party members of the Association, as a member of the Association, as the non-party's joint business.

C. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is partially erroneous, but the decision does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)