2017 Ghana52403 Prices for goods

A

International Asset Trust Corporation

March 6, 2018

March 27, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 117,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from August 31, 2016 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

(1) (tentative name) B Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee of this case") shall be C in the Gunsan City;

A project to build multi-family housing and neighborhood living facilities was established to promote the project, and around 2016 entered into a fund management agency contract between the defendant and the defendant to provide funds related to the above project under the name of the defendant, and to receive, manage, operate and execute them.

B. On June 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production and supply of banners required to promote the project of the regional housing association (hereinafter referred to as “instant banner supply contract”) and received advance payment of KRW 15,000,000 on June 21, 2016, and supplied KRW 8,000 from around that time to August 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the result of an order to submit documents to the defendant by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The promotion of the instant case constitutes a partnership under the Civil Act, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods on the promotion of the instant case is a claim arising from commercial activities. Therefore, all members of the promotional group of the instant case are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 117,00,000, which was not paid by the instant promotion group.

B. However, since the Defendant is only keeping and executing funds for promotion within the scope delegated by the instant promotion team, the amount deposited in the account in the name of the Defendant and managed by the Defendant constitutes joint ownership of all union members for the instant promotion team. Meanwhile, the repayment of partnership debts constitutes disposal and alteration of partnership property, and is determined by a majority of union members as it constitutes disposal and alteration of partnership property, and is subject to the exercise of subrogation right by subrogation.

C. The promotion of the instant case constitutes insolvent because there is no other asset than the money deposited in the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.

D. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is entitled to seek joint and several liability for all members, exercised his/her voting right on the disposal of the partnership property by subrogation of the majority of the promotion stage of the instant case (which constitutes repayment of the price for banner). Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the price for banner 117,00,000, and the delay damages.

3. Determination

Under the premise that the promotion of the instant case is a partnership under the Civil Act, the purport of the Plaintiff’s exercise of voting rights in respect of the disposal of the property of the partnership by the said union members. However, in a case where the obligee’s right to the obligor, which is to be preserved by subrogation, is a monetary claim on behalf of the obligor, the obligee may exercise the obligee’s right on behalf of the obligor on behalf of the obligor, i.e., the need for preservation, in the event that the obligor’s insolvency is a monetary claim, and the obligee’s insolvency as a requirement for subrogation is not the obligor’s ability of performance (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76556, Feb. 26, 2009). Furthermore, the obligee who exercises the obligee’s right of subrogation is deemed to be unlawful if the need for preservation is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da3918, Aug. 30, 2012).

Judges Kang Shin-young