Cases where a partner exercises his/her claim against a union, which are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the representative of the union.

If partnership claims are exercised by partner, partnership agreement

whether there is a provision with respect to the manager and if there is no such provision,

Whether the plaintiffs were elected as executive officers of the association, and the claims of the association

It is clear whether the exercise of rights belongs to the executive director of the union.

It is necessary to make a trial judgment.

Article 706 of the Civil Act

Sam National Land Construction Company

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff and 11 others

Defendant 13 and 12 others

Defendant 26

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na591, 592 delivered on July 28, 1967

(1) The appeal by the 13-Appellants from among the Defendants is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

(2) (1) In the appeal of the Plaintiff, the portion concerning additional construction works and water supply works, waterworks extension works and drainage works are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

(b)The part against the plaintiff other than the above (i) shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(1) We examine the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s ground of appeal

According to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff and the non-party 2, whose members are the plaintiff and the non-party 1 (the non-party's members together with the above non-party 29) enter into a contract to construct the above 29 building as 6,382,020 won, and set a gold of KRW 1,412,450 as an additional amount for the above construction due to price increase, and a water supply system construction as 290,000 won and water supply system installation as 427,000 won and water supply system installation as 145,00 won and water supply system installation as 145,00 won and water supply system installation as 165,00 won, and the plaintiff did not pay the above 29,000 won to the above defendant 2 and the above association's claim for reimbursement of KRW 283,400,500 among the above additional construction charges, and the plaintiff did not pay the above construction charges to the above 36,50157,500.

(B) According to the original judgment, the court below determined that the above part of the plaintiff's claim against the above plaintiff's Lessee was defective, and that the above 551,413 won and the above evidence was admitted to have been entirely paid to the above Lessee. Thus, the above part of the original judgment cannot be found to be erroneous in the incomplete hearing and violation of the rules of evidence in relation to all the defendants. (C) According to the original judgment, each part of the above Lessee's claim against the plaintiff's Lessee (the defendant 26 did not have any counter-claim), and the above part of the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff as to the above Lessee's claim against the above Lessee's Lessee's liability against the plaintiff should be justified, and since there were defects such as roof damage and the plaintiff's obligation to repair such defects, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above Lessee's claim against the plaintiff's Lessee's non-appellant's claim against the above plaintiff.

(D)In accordance with the original judgment, the court below rejected the evidence that, based on its stated evidence, the amount of KRW 1,136,60 out of the construction additional charges of the plaintiff's assertion was paid, KRW 275,850 was not paid, KRW 211,390 out of the waterworks construction charges and the extension charges of water supply pipes, and KRW 418,610 was not paid, and KRW 17,500 out of the amount of the drainage works, and KRW 127,500 was not paid, and the amount of KRW 127,50 was not paid. The court below rejected the evidence posted. The court below's above evidence preparation cannot be found to have been erroneous by examining the record, and the appeal on this point is justified, and the appeal on this point is dismissed.

(2) We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney who appealed.

(1) The argument in the grounds of appeal is the argument that the court below did not recognize the points although the defendants alleged that there was an incomplete part in the building held by the defendants, such as other defendants, although the defendants asserted that there was an incomplete part in the building held by the defendants, and even after examining the evidence stated in the original judgment based on the records, there is no error in the court below's finding that the construction of the building was completed, and therefore there is no reason to attack the legitimate fact

(2) The argument in the grounds of appeal is that, even if the above building was completed, the plaintiff's construction has neglected and has a duty to repair the above defect. In other words, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages to the plaintiff, and the court below has accepted only the amount of KRW 322,50, which is part of the judgment below, despite the plaintiff's claim for the counterclaim, and it is unfair that the court below has accepted only the amount of KRW 322,50, which is part of the judgment below, and as stated in subparagraph (1) (C) of the above, it is not erroneous in the court below's acceptance of part of the defendants' claim for counterclaim. Thus

Therefore, among the parts against the plaintiff in the original judgment, the above (1) (A) (B) (C) shall be reversed on the ground that the above point is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal concerning the above-mentioned (1) (D) and the defendants' appeal are groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong