A. Whether a creditor of a union may bring an action for performance against each partner, where he/she exercises his/her claim on the basis of an individual responsibility for each member (affirmative);

(b) Whether a partnership’s liability is jointly and severally liable where the partnership’s liability is to be borne by an act that engages in commercial activities for all members (affirmative)

(a)a creditor of a union may bring an action for performance against each partner, if he exercises his claim on the basis of his personal responsibility, not for common responsibility with respect to the property of the union against the partner;

B. If an obligation of a cooperative is to be borne by an act which has become a commercial activity for all members, the joint and several liability shall be determined by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act to the obligations of the cooperative members.

(b)Article 712, Section 1, of the Civil Code;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1499 Decided November 12, 1985 (Gong1986,30) / (A) Supreme Court Decision 4290DaDa459 Decided October 31, 1957, Supreme Court Decision 70Da2872 Decided May 23, 1972 / B. Supreme Court Decision 76Da2212 Decided December 14, 1976 (Gong197,9819)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na2375 delivered on July 16, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

If a creditor of a union does not hold a joint liability with the property of the union, but exercises a claim based on the personal responsibility of each union member, he/she may file a lawsuit against each union member for performance thereof. On the other hand, if the union's obligation is particularly caused by an act of commercial activity for all the union members, it shall be deemed that the joint liability should be determined by applying Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act to the union members with respect to such obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da2212, Dec. 14, 1976).

Based on macroscopic evidence, the court below acknowledged the following facts: the defendant agreed to jointly operate the business of constructing a commercial building, selling its stores, etc., "Yeong shopping center" as stated in the judgment of June 2, 1983 with co-defendant 2 and the non-party, etc.; and accordingly, the defendant sold 107 units of the above commercial building to the plaintiff on January 15, 1984 for KRW 85,428,000 and received KRW 39,89,800 in total from the plaintiff; and thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff 36,735,80 won out of the above amount received on August 15, 1984; and determined that the defendant agreed to pay the above amount to the plaintiff to return 36,735,80 won out of the above amount received by the defendant to the non-party joint defendant 2 and the non-party 306,370 and damages for delay.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, and if the facts are so true, the obligation to pay the money of this case constitutes a partnership obligation of the above partnership, which is the obligation of the above partnership, and is borne by the act that is a commercial activity for all the union members. Thus, the decision of the court below that the defendant is jointly and severally liable with other union members for the repayment of the obligation is proper, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. All arguments

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)