(a) The case holding that, in case where two persons Gap and Eul-B make a mutual investment into the land owned by Gap and bear equally half the total expenses incurred in establishing a hotel and jointly operating a partnership agreement on the land owned by Eul, the amount equivalent to one half of the market value of the land owned by Eul, which is offered as the first hotel site, shall be paid to Eul, and that the amount equivalent to one half of the market value of the land owned by Eul is not different from the investment obligation of Eul for the partnership;

B. The meaning of "inevitable reasons" under Article 720 of the Civil Code, which is the reason for dissolution of the partnership.

(c) The case holding that a union as referred to in Paragraph (a) above considers notification of cancellation of a partnership agreement as a claim for dissolution of the union and that a party to the contract has the right to claim dissolution;

(d) Where it is possible to immediately file a claim for return of investment without going through liquidation procedures.

(a) The case holding that, in case where two persons Gap and Eul-B make a mutual investment into the land owned by Gap and bear equally half of all the expenses required for the establishment and joint operation of a hotel on the ground owned by Eul, the obligation to pay Eul for the price of the land to Eul is not different from the obligation to pay Eul for the investment in the partnership of Eul, on the ground that Eul and Eul-B agree to pay the amount equivalent to half of the market price of the land owned by Gap as the first hotel site under the Daejeon :

(b) inevitable reasons, which are reasons for requesting dissolution of a cooperative, include cases where it is not possible to expect a smooth operation of the cooperative affairs due to the destruction of trust relationships between the parties to the cooperative, unless there are objective reasons that it is deemed difficult to achieve the objectives of the cooperative due to the aggravation of the status of the cooperative or the aggravation of its business due to changes in circumstances in the economic community.

(c) The case holding that the union's notification of cancellation of a partnership agreement shall be deemed to be the demand for dissolution of the union and the party to the contract shall also have the right to claim dissolution of the union;

D. Unless otherwise expressly agreed between the parties, the partnership’s dissolution does not take place as a common course or as a remaining business of the partnership. However, where only the distribution of residual property remains, the partnership’s dissolution does not need separate liquidation procedures. Since the partnership’s dissolution has been made in proportion to its respective partner’s investment price, barring any special agreement, the partnership partner who has performed the investment obligation may immediately seek the return of its invested property.

(a) Article 703(b) of the Civil Act; Article 720(d) of the Civil Act; Articles 720 and 721 of the Civil Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 63Da831 Decided December 22, 1964

Attorney Yang Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Na4603 delivered on July 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff and the defendant acknowledged the following facts based on the facts without dispute between the parties. In other words, the plaintiff and the defendant, on July 29, 1986, were to make a mutual contribution to the plaintiff's 15-4 share of 70,000 won, and to make a joint operation of the hotel on the same 15-4 meter, the plaintiff's share of 90,000 won was to be paid to the defendant for the remaining 980,000 won on the ground that it is difficult for the plaintiff to make it difficult for the plaintiff to pay the remaining 97,000,000 won on the ground that the above 9-7,000,000 won was to be paid for each of the above 9-7,000 won shares of the above 9-7,000 won shares to the plaintiff's share of the above 9-7,000,000 won.

2. The court below is justified in finding that the date of the payment of the remaining amount of the hotel site of this case has not been postponed from August 30, 1986 to September 15 of the same year. The arguments on this issue cannot be adopted.

In addition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's obligation to pay the land price to the plaintiff is not different from the defendant's obligation to make a contribution to the union. Therefore, the date of payment is the execution date of the obligation to make a contribution, and the defendant's obligation to pay the land price is the performance date of the obligation to make a contribution to the extent of the amount that the obligation is fulfilled.

3. "Inevitable reason" (Article 720 of the Civil Code), which is a reason for requesting dissolution of a cooperative, includes cases where it is deemed difficult to achieve the objectives of the cooperative due to the deterioration of the status of the cooperative's property or the aggravation of its business operation due to changes in the circumstances of the economic community, except for cases where there is any objective reason that it is extremely difficult to achieve the objectives of the cooperative, such as the deterioration of the trust relationship between the parties to the cooperative and the failure to expect the smooth operation of the cooperative by causing the destruction of trust relationship due to the conflict. As recognized by the court below, if the time limit for the execution of some of the investment after the conclusion of the contract of the cooperative and the situation where the two members were subject to criminal punishment due to violence, etc., it shall be deemed that the reflection of the investment among the cooperative members shall be deemed that the smooth operation of the

4. As seen earlier, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff reached the defendant on September 11, 1986 upon receiving the cancellation notice of the partnership's business relationship. Thus, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's cancellation notice of the partnership's business contract was just and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of expression of intent. The court below acknowledged the receipt of the cancellation notice as above, and cited Gap evidence 3 (Notice of Elimination), Gap evidence 5, 6 (Notice) and witness testimony without dispute. The records acknowledged the receipt of Gap evidence 3 at the second date for pleading of the court of first instance, but the defendant did not deny the receipt of the above evidence from the preparatory document of June 13, 1990 as stated on June 13, 199, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's right to claim dissolution from the plaintiff 1 as the defendant's long-term delivery notice of No. 4 (Delivery Certificate). 3). Thus, the court below's determination that the defendant's withdrawal notice was not accepted.

5. In a case where the partnership is dissolved, unless there is a separate agreement between the parties, a liquidation procedure is to be conducted as a common place or as a remaining business of the partnership. However, in a case where only the distribution of residual property remains, a separate liquidation procedure is not required, and the remaining property is distributed in proportion to the respective partner’s investment price, barring any special agreement among the partners. Thus, the partner who has performed the obligation of investment can immediately seek the return of the invested property (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da831, Dec. 22, 1964).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that at the time of the request for dissolution of this case, the plaintiff was engaged in only minor partnership business to the extent that he did not start to construct a new hotel, did not need to be treated as the remaining business of the union, and since the property of the union did not exist except the land of this case invested by the plaintiff, the plaintiff who performed the duty of investment could file a claim for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage in the name of the defendant in the name of the above land in the sense of seeking the return of the property invested by the plaintiff. This is just in light of the legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)