(a) Method of demanding from members of partnership creditors;

(b) Whether a union member is jointly and severally liable where a union member bears obligations due to an act that engages in commercial activities for all its members (affirmative)

C. The meaning of "right and obligation" under Article 9 of the Mining Industry Act and whether the obligation to return security deposit is included in the establishment of a mining concession contract between the mining right holder and the mining concession holder (negative)

A. The partnership’s obligations are the partnership’s obligations and, barring special circumstances, the partnership’s creditors can only claim reimbursement according to the share ratio or uniform to each partner.

(b) If the liability of the partnership is to be borne by an act which has been conducted as a commercial activity for all the union members, it is reasonable to authorize the joint and several liability to those union members by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act.

C. In Article 9 of the Mining Industry Act, the rights and obligations transferred, such as a mining right or a mining concession, refer only to the rights and obligations under the Mining Industry Act, and cannot be deemed as including the obligation to refund the deposit determined by the mining right holder and a mining concession holder when concluding a mining concession contract.

a.B.Article 712(b) of the Civil Code; Article 57(1)(c) of the Commercial Code; Article 9 of the Mining Industry Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Da2872 delivered on May 23, 1972, 75Da169 delivered on May 27, 1975 (Gong1975, 8514) (Gong1974 delivered on November 12, 1985) (Gong1986, 30) B. Supreme Court Decision 76Da2212 delivered on December 14, 1976 (Gong197, 9819) (Gong192, 272)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na116 delivered on June 12, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In full view of the evidence, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 transferred the claim for the refund of the deposit to the plaintiff on June 12, 1990 to the non-party 2 for the payment of wages to workers. After receiving the mine closure countermeasure expenses from the Coal Industry Rationalization Business Association on November 3, 1989, the non-party 1 demanded the defendants to pay wages to workers and pay 27,086,269 won to the plaintiff. However, the non-party 1 requested the plaintiff to transfer it to the plaintiff instead of receiving the above deposit from the defendants for the above payment to the plaintiff. The non-party 2 transferred it to the plaintiff on June 12, 1990, and the non-party 2 transferred it to the plaintiff, and it cannot be viewed that the non-party 9's statement of evidence and the testimony by the non-party 3 cannot be viewed as null and void due to the misconception of facts and the non-party 2's allegation and the record.

2. The partnership's obligations are the union's obligations, unless there are special circumstances, the union creditors are entitled to claim repayment at the ratio of shares to each union member or uniformly. However, if the union's obligations are particularly borne by acts which constitute commercial activities for all union members, it is reasonable to determine the joint liability for the union members by applying Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act to the union's obligations. As recognized by the court below, if the defendants are in the position of joint mining right holder for operating a mine and accordingly have agreed upon the contract with the non-party 1, and have returned the deposit received by restoration to its original state, the above obligation to return the deposit is created by the original commercial activities, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment. Thus, since the court below ordered the defendants to pay the deposit to each of the defendants, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it is not reasonable to discuss the above issue.

3. In addition, Article 9 of the Mining Industry Act provides that the rights and obligations transferred such as a mining right or a mining concession right shall refer only to the rights and obligations under the Mining Industry Act, and it shall not be deemed that they include the obligation to return the deposit as determined in concluding a mining concession contract between the mining right holder and the mining concession holder. Even if Defendant 1 withdraws from the position of joint mining right holder after the withdrawal, the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 9 of the Mining Industry Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.