logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.06.11 2013다29714
동업지분권확인 등
Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the plaintiff's grounds of appeal on the termination of the partnership relationship of this case, in the partnership agreement, such as the partnership agreement, a request for dissolution of the partnership, withdrawal from the partnership, or expulsion of other union members can only be made, and as to the general contract, the partnership agreement cannot be cancelled or terminated, and the other party shall not be obliged to recover from its original status.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7157, May 13, 1994). The withdrawal of a cooperative under Article 716 of the Civil Act goes beyond the status of a cooperative member in the future. In such a case, the cooperative itself maintains the identity of a cooperative member and continues to exist. Thus, withdrawal is premised on the continuation of a cooperative member’s business. On the other hand, a cooperative’s claim for dissolution under Article 720 of the Civil Act suspends active activities to carry out its business for the extinguishment of a cooperative and enters the stage of arranging its property.

If a certain partner gives notice of termination to another partner when the trust relationship becomes broken due to the infertility between the parties to the partnership and the withdrawal or expulsion of a specific partner is unable to expect the smooth operation of the partnership's business, it can be deemed as a request for dissolution of the partnership accompanied by the extinction of the partnership.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da46268 delivered on March 26, 1996, 2007Da48370, 48387 delivered on November 15, 2007, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court concluded a business agreement of this case where the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C mutually invested on September 9, 2006 to operate the joint business of establishing and operating the instant hospital and distribute its profits, and to which they would operate the joint business of this case and distribute its profits.

arrow