The right to distribute and preserve the properties of the partnership at the time of liquidation of partnership.

Where an applicant purchased a respondent and a land and entered into a partnership agreement for the purpose of operating a joint business, and later withdraws from the partnership and requests the division of the above land which is the property of the partnership, the remaining property at the time of liquidation of partnership shall be distributed in proportion to the amount of the investment of the union members. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the applicant has the right to be compensated for the joint division of the above land without determining the existence

Article 724(2) of the Civil Act; Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1315 delivered on August 8, 1980

Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Respondent, Attorney Park Nam-soo, Counsel for the defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na55 delivered on June 14, 1979

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In this case, if the facts alleged by the applicant are summarized, this case's land is purchased from the non-party by jointly investing the applicant and the respondent on September 29, 1971, with the purchase from the non-party 4,100,000 won, so the applicant has a joint claim against the respondent to divide the original land into two parts, and the respondent does not have any contribution to the purchase of the original land, and it is clear that the respondent has purchased the original land by paying the full payment to the respondent, so it is obvious that this case's land is a sole ownership of the respondent.

However, the court below held that the contractual relationship between the claimant and the respondent with respect to the purchase of the land of this case as the association agreement shall be deemed to belong to the claimant and the respondent at the same time as the purchase of the land of this case, and therefore, the respondent shall pay the purchase price of the land of this case independently as alleged by the claimant and the respondent, and that the applicant shall withdraw from the association composed of 20,000 members by filing a lawsuit on the merits of this case and seek dissolution, so the above partnership relationship between the claimant and the respondent shall be dissolved and the partnership relationship with respect to the land of this case, which is the union property, shall also be terminated, so the respondent shall be bound to respond to the applicant's claim that the land of this case shall be divided into two parts and owned by the applicant pursuant to Article 274 of the Civil Code, and therefore the applicant shall be held to the effect that the applicant has the right to preserve the land of this case.

However, even if the above contract between the applicant and the respondent is deemed to be a combination property of the applicant and the claim on the merits of the case is deemed to be a lawsuit seeking dissolution by withdrawing from the above partnership relationship, and at the same time, to vest in the remaining property, the applicant is asserting that the applicant shall own 1/2 of the amount equivalent to the ratio of the applicant's investment in common investment (the respondent does not claim that the respondent would have the applicant's investment obligation), and even according to Article 724 (2) of the Civil Act Article 724 (2) of the Civil Act, the remaining property at the time of liquidation of the partnership shall be distributed in proportion to the amount of the investment of each member, so the court below shall pay the purchase price of the land in proportion to the amount of each member's investment. The applicant shall not be concluded to have the right to claim the joint ownership of the land in this case without examining the respondent's claim that there was no investment in the purchase price and determining the amount of the investment among the applicant and the respondent (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da153798, Aug. 19, 19808).

However, the court below judged that the applicant has the right to claim the joint partition of this case's land in the light of the applicant's value or without determining the applicant's value of the investment, and ultimately, it cannot be exempted from criticism due to insufficient deliberation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)