Liability of the general partner with unlimited liability retired from a limited partnership company for the obligations of the company

In accordance with Articles 269 and 225 of the Commercial Act, a general partner with unlimited liability who retired from a limited partnership company shall be exempted from liability unless he proves that the limited partnership company has sufficient ability to repay and is easy to execute the debt of the company which occurred before making a registration of withdrawal at the seat of its principal office, inasmuch as it is identical with another general partner within two years after the registration.

Park Gi-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Kim Woo

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na2428 delivered on September 25, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

In accordance with Articles 269 and 225 of the Commercial Act, the general partner with unlimited liability of a limited partnership company retired in accordance with the above Articles, and 225, has the same responsibility as other general partners with respect to the company's obligations arising before making a registration of withdrawal at the seat of its principal office within two years after the registration. According to the facts established by the court below, the number of drivers belonging to a limited partnership company, new taxi company, caused an accident of this case at this time was the same time as August 5, 1971, and the above company's obligations arising from the accident at this time occurred. The defendant, who is the general partner of the above company, filed a registration of withdrawal, is the company's obligations after the above company's occurrence of the above obligations, and it is clear in the records that the plaintiffs filed this case against the defendant, which is within two years after the date of the above defendant's retirement registration, and therefore, the defendant has the same liability as other general partner under the above Article, and the judgment in the same purport cannot be said to be erroneous in

With respect to the second ground:

Inasmuch as the fact that the Defendant has the ability to repay to the new taxi in the non-party limited partnership company and the execution thereof is difficult, it cannot be said that the lower court committed an unlawful act in the hearing on the ground that the Defendant, who did not prove his/her claim, did not urge the submission of an explanation or assertion on it, and did not urge the submission of an explanation or assertion.

In the end, all arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)