beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,579,930 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 18, 2016 to October 18, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. From April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant operated a restaurant business under the trade name, “D stores” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) in the Gu Government City C from Apr. 11, 2016.
On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to withdraw from the partnership relationship to the Defendant.
When the plaintiff withdraws from the partnership relationship, the above company's property is 130,000,000 won for the partnership property and 30% for the plaintiff's partnership property. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 won corresponding to the plaintiff's share out of the above union property (=130,000,000 x 30%) among the above union property x 30% for the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. Where one member withdraws from a partnership in two relevant legal principles, the partnership relationship is terminated, but unless there are special circumstances, the partnership relationship is not dissolved, and the existing joint business shall continue to exist as the remaining member's property belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining member. In calculating due to withdrawal between the withdrawing and the remaining member, barring special circumstances, the amount equivalent to the withdrawing member's share out of the partnership's property appraised based on "the state of property at the time of withdrawal" under Article 719 (1) and (2) of the Civil Act shall be returned in cash, and in the case of the liquidation of the partnership, the ratio of shares of the union member in question shall be calculated based on the ratio of profit and loss distribution inside the partnership, unlike the ratio of actual asset value invested in the case of the liquidation of the partnership.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da49693 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). B.
In the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute the facts that they operated the instant restaurant as a partnership business, and this constitutes an association agreement under Article 703 of the Civil Act. 2) The details and value of the Plaintiff’s property at the time of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from partnership, and the Defendant’s transfer of the instant restaurant to Party A, see Evidence 9 around June 2017, 31.