logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.03.24 2019나2022430
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

Reasons

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of "a judgment on the claims and arguments added by the plaintiff in the trial" as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion of claim and assertion added at the trial, the Defendant and F were in a partnership relationship in which the Defendant jointly operates and manages the instant marina Nos. 1 through 5 stories owned by the Defendant, and F, and F borrowed KRW 400 million from the Plaintiff for the operation of the said partnership.

Therefore, the above borrowing act of F constitutes a commercial activity for all union members, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable with F pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act to pay the above borrowing amount of KRW 400 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

Judgment

A contract for a partnership agreement under the Civil Act stipulating that two or more persons jointly invest in a trade name to operate a business, can only be the agreement for a joint operation of a specific business, and the degree of achievement of a common purpose can not be deemed to meet the requirements for establishment of the partnership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5140, Jun. 14, 2007). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the witness L testimony, is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant and F entered into a partnership agreement with the content of the joint management of each store owned by them by mutual investment, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion of liability for damages is that the Defendant bears the obligation to allow the Plaintiff to use the instant Mart H and I pursuant to Article 2 of the Agreement on April 19, 2016, but the said stores sell them by auction on January 5, 2017.

arrow