A. Whether an inevitable cause under Article 720 of the Civil Act concerning the cause of dissolution of a cooperative may be determined in cases where the fiduciary relationship was destroyed due to the conflict between the union members due to the destruction of the fiduciary relationship and the failure to expect the smooth joint operation of the cooperative (affirmative), and in such cases, whether the party who has the right to demand dissolution of the cooperative has the right to claim (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the shares of the dissolved company, on the ground that there is no need to go through liquidation procedures in case where the plaintiff's withdrawal from the partnership or the partnership company is dissolved in the partnership company, and the plaintiff is exempted from liability for repayment of obligations instead of claiming distribution of residual property and entered into a special agreement to terminate the partnership company

A. Inevitable reasons, which are grounds for dissolution of a cooperative under Article 720 of the Civil Act, include cases where the trust relationship between the union members is destroyed due to a conflict between the union members due to the change of circumstances in the economic community, the aggravation of the status of the union's property, or the aggravation of its business operation, etc., and where it is not possible to expect the smooth joint operation of the cooperative due to the destruction of the trust relationship between the union members, and as long as the continuation of the joint business becomes considerably difficult, the parties liable for the destruction of trust relationship also

B. The case holding that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the shares of the dissolved company since it is not necessary to go through liquidation procedures in the case where the plaintiff in the partnership business contract or the partnership company is dissolved, and the plaintiff is exempted from the liability for repayment of obligations instead of claiming distribution of residual property and entered into a special agreement to terminate the partnership business with the return of his own investment.

(a) Article 720 of the Civil Act; Articles 724 and 716 of the Civil Act; Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26300 Decided February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1065)

Plaintiff-Appellant Park Jong-ap et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Liberian Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: Dong Tourism Development) and one other, Defendants, 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na2343 delivered on May 7, 1992

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 (the supplementary appellate brief was submitted after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, and it is judged to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

In extenuating circumstances, which are grounds for dissolution of a cooperative under Article 720 of the Civil Act, include cases where a cooperative is unable to expect smooth joint operation due to the destruction of trust relationship due to the conflict between the cooperative members due to the change of circumstances in the economic community, aggravation of its property status, or a failure to achieve the objectives of the cooperative, as well as cases where it is significantly difficult to continue the joint operation due to the conflict between the union members due to anti-defluence. As such, as long as the continuation of the joint operation becomes considerably difficult, it shall be deemed that the party liable for the destruction of trust has the right to claim dissolution of the cooperative even if the party is the party liable for the destruction of trust (see

In light of the records, the court below determined that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants of this case was concluded, and there was anti-influence and combustibility of the costs surrounding the plaintiff's participation in the business, as stated in the judgment, and that the agreement was destroyed to the extent that the trust relationship between the plaintiff was impossible to recover because the agreement was concluded, and that such reason was not an inevitable reason for requesting dissolution of the company, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles, such as theory.

In addition, the court below held that the defendants' claim for dissolution cannot be rejected since the plaintiff's above dispute and rebuttals arising between the plaintiff and the defendant denied the validity of the above business agreement and did not perform the defendants' obligations under the above business agreement and want to unfairly exclude the plaintiff from participating in the plaintiff's entertainment room business. Thus, since the damage of trust relationship among the plaintiff and the defendant is entirely responsible for the defendants, it does not constitute an inevitable reason for requesting dissolution of the company, and even if it falls under inevitable reason, the defendants who caused inevitable reason cannot make a claim for dissolution under the principle of good faith, even though the cause of destruction of trust is only one party in the business relationship based on the trust relation based on the trust relationship, if it is impossible for the court below to achieve the purpose of the business, as in this case, it should be deemed as an inevitable reason for requesting dissolution, so long as it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the business, since it cannot be seen as an inevitable reason for requesting dissolution, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below's judgment is just and without merit, and there is no error in law in light of legal principles among the plaintiff and the defendants.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the plaintiff's assertion that the above enterprise still remains in liquidation procedures such as distribution of residual assets, and the defendants still deny the validity of the above business partnership agreement, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the above business partnership shares, the court below determined that the plaintiff's share in the business partnership agreement of this case did not set aside part of the earnings of the business partnership of this case as the assets of the company, but did not pay off the profits of the company, and that the remaining amount after deducting ordinary expenses was deducted from the profits of the business partnership of this case should be distributed to the plaintiff at its own share rate of 25% in order to make the plaintiff distribute the profits of at least 4% of the plaintiff's investment funds to the company at the end of the business partnership agreement, and that the defendants' share in the above 00-year partnership agreement was already made in lieu of the above 00-year partnership agreement, and that the plaintiff's remaining 0-year partnership agreement was not required to be concluded in lieu of the above 0-year partnership agreement.

Upon examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below, and if the facts are identical to this, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants with the partnership is extinguished by dissolution of the partnership and they continue to exist for liquidation. Thus, the court below is just in holding that there is no profit to seek confirmation of the shares in the partnership, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts and incomplete deliberation due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the assertion of the lawsuit

3. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3.

The scope of the Plaintiff’s damage claim is determined by two persons, namely, the average daily dividend amount as well as the number of days of embezzlement and breach of trust by the Defendants. Therefore, even if the amount of damages does not exceed the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim, the court cannot recognize the average daily dividend amount exceeding the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages from August 22, 1988 to March 16, 1989, the court below was just in finding the average daily dividend within the limit of the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and there was no error of misunderstanding the plaintiff's claims, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, the court below is also justified in the measures that calculated the standard for calculating the amount of damages after June 6, 1989 as 673,718 won per day, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

4. We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion on the ground that the defendants' assertion that the defendants should take into account the above mistake of the plaintiff in calculating the amount of damages that the defendants should be exempted from the defendants' liability for damages or the defendants should compensate for because the plaintiff interfered with the defendants' business and inevitably suspended the business of this case. In light of the records, the court below's above determination is just and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

5. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that there was an implied agreement that only the defendants should bear the expenses such as taxes and public charges, personnel expenses, etc. claimed by the defendants at the time of concluding the partnership agreement of this case. However, although the court below did not have any defects in the contents of the judgment based on the above reasoning, the court below is justified in the above judgment of the court below in light of the fact that the plaintiff participated in the entertainment room business and would normally receive a dividend from the defendants, and there is no lack of evidence from deducting the expenses as alleged by the defendants when the plaintiff would normally receive a dividend from the defendants

6. Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.