Whether the parties to a partnership agreement may cancel the partnership agreement and claim restitution from the parties thereto.

In the partnership agreement, such as the partnership agreement, a request for dissolution of the partnership, withdrawal from the partnership, or expulsion from the partnership can only be made, and the other party shall not be obliged to pay the obligation to reinstate due to cancellation of the partnership agreement as in the general contract.

Articles 543 and 703 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

[Judgment of the court below]

Sung-ju Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na8896 delivered on December 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In short, the purport of the lawsuit is that the Plaintiff’s rescission of the second contract of this case at the time of the original adjudication has lost its validity as well as the first contract of this case, and the Defendant Company, the other party, is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 26,750,000, which was already paid by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, as the restoration to its original state following the rescission of the first contract of this case.

However, according to the court below's lawful determination, it is clear that the plaintiff has entered into the first contract of this case, which is a business contract of this case, with the initial non-party who made an investment in 60,000,000 won with the defendant company as well as the initial non-party who made an investment in the business related to the gas facility construction of this case, and with the defendant's joint management and completion of the business related to the gas facility construction of this case which was subcontracted by the defendant, and it can have a claim for dissolution of the association, withdrawal from the association, or expulsion from the association, or expulsion from other association members, but it is not possible to cancel the partnership agreement as in the general contract and to bear the obligation of restitution from the other party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do2566, May 12, 198; 87Meu148, Mar. 8, 1988).

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for the return of investment in this case is fully justified in its conclusion, and therefore, it cannot be accepted in its argument against this point.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)