Cases where there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the liability of a corporation after the establishment.
As the defendant union was established for the purpose of joint production, joint processing, and joint consumption of the households of its members, the defendant union made joint efforts by the promoters of the defendant union established prior to the establishment of the defendant union in order to prevent the conclusion of the contract of unfair furnitures, etc. conducted by the government agencies, and the borrowed money cannot be deemed expenses for the establishment itself, unless there are special circumstances, for the purpose of the association's establishment itself. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability of the juristic person after the establishment of the association for the act of the juristic person under establishment.
Article 34 of the Civil Act, Article 10 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act
National Home Industry Cooperatives
Jeonju District Court Decision 64Na186 delivered on November 27, 1964
We reverse the original judgment.
this case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney.
According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant union held an inaugural general meeting on March 31, 1963 for the joint production, joint processing, and consumption of the households of its members and appointed the non-party 1 as the president as the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 as directors, and the defendant union completed the registration of establishment on July 4, 1963, and the non-party 1, the representative of the defendant union established prior to the above inaugural general meeting, and the non-party 7, 8, 5, 9, and 3 as its promoters, shall make joint efforts to prevent the conclusion of a private contract of unfair furniture, etc. at the government office, and borrowed necessary expenses therefor. Thus, the above promoters and promoters borrowed gold 16,00 won from the plaintiff on March 30, 1963, and therefore, the expenses for the above purpose cannot be interpreted as expenses for the establishment of the defendant union, and the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the act of establishment of the defendant union without any special circumstances.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)
- 민법 제34조