logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.12.17 2014나301824
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's defense that the plaintiff is not a non-legal entity's company, is not a party's ability, and the defendant's main defense is examined.

B. Although a partnership and a corporate body under the Civil Act do not have legal personality but in distinguishing a non-corporate body which is recognized as an association, it shall be judged on the basis of the strongness of its organization generally. Since it is established by a contractual relationship between two or more persons to contribute money, property, or labor to operate a joint business with each other, it is subject to the limitation from a certain group of organization. However, compared to the human combination where the personality of the members is sufficiently revealed, a non-corporate body has a characteristic that can be the subject of rights and obligations, separate from the personality of the members.

The decision-making body and the executive body shall be organized based on the rules that have the nature of an association with its own purpose, and the decision-making body and the executive body shall be made by the principle of majority majority, and the organization itself shall continue to exist regardless of the membership, withdrawal, etc. of its members, and where the organization has a representative method, the operation of the general meeting or board of directors, the composition of capital, the management of property, or other important matters as a non-corporate body are determined by its organization (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da4504, Apr. 23, 1999). The decision-making body and the executive body shall have the nature that it shall be determined on the basis of the date of closing argument of the fact-finding court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da30675 delivered on November 26, 1991). C.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements (including paper numbers) in Gap evidence 1 through 4, 8 through 10, and witness G of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading.

1 “A”.

arrow