2. Where one person withdraws from a partnership, the legal relations of the partnership's property and the standard time of appraisal of assets for equity calculation.

In the partnership relationship, that is, when one of the two persons withdraws from the partnership relationship, the partnership relationship is terminated, but the partnership shall not be dissolved unless there are special circumstances. However, in the case of the property belonging to a partnership of a partner, it is limited to the calculation due to withdrawal between the withdrawing partner and the remaining person as it belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining union members, and the calculation between the withdrawing partner and the other union members shall be based on the property status of the partnership at the time of withdrawal under Article 719(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, in calculating the shares, the base date for assessing the shares shall be deemed as at the time of withdrawal.

Article 719 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2951 Decided June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1230) (Gong1988, 151) Decided November 24, 1987 (Gong1988, 151) Supreme Court Decision 86Meu617 Decided June 14, 198 (Gong198, 1016) (Gong1990, 872) Decided March 9, 190

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na862 delivered on April 4, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal against Defendant 1.

A. On the first ground for appeal

The court below held that the amount borrowed from the Hanwon Bank Co., Ltd. from the plaintiff is for the purpose of performing the duty of investment in the union of this case. Thus, it cannot be said that there was an error of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as a theory of lawsuit, in recognizing and determining that it is merely an individual debt of the plaintiff and cannot be viewed as

B. On the second and third grounds for appeal

In a partnership relationship with two persons, namely, a partnership relationship is terminated if one of them withdraws from the partnership relationship, but a partnership shall not be dissolved unless there are special circumstances. However, a partnership's property belonging to a partnership's joint ownership is limited to the calculation due to withdrawal between the withdrawing partner and the remaining partner as it belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining union members, and the calculation between the withdrawing partner and the other union members shall be based on the status of the union's property at the time of withdrawal pursuant to Article 719 (1) of the Civil Act. Thus, in the calculation of shares, the base date for appraisal of the shares shall be deemed as at the time of withdrawal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu617, Jun. 14, 198; 86Meu2951, Jun. 23, 1987).

In the same purport, the court below determined that the partnership relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 was terminated at around November 1990 due to the withdrawal of the defendant 1 and that the calculation between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 should be based on the above withdrawal, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law such as misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc., and the court below did not find that the plaintiff 1 has withdrawn from the partnership of this case after completing the settlement procedure with the plaintiff or that the association of this case was dissolved at the time of withdrawal from the association of this case, and therefore it cannot be accepted

2. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant 2

In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation against the debtor is not recognized, the creditor himself becomes the plaintiff and the creditor cannot be a party to the creditor's right to the third debtor. Thus, the subrogation lawsuit is unlawful and dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da14339, Jun. 24, 1994; 92Da48857, Jul. 13, 1993).

In the same purport of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff's right to defendant 1 is not recognized, it is just and acceptable that the plaintiff is not entitled to subrogate the right to defendant 1's defendant 2. Thus, the plaintiff's argument on the lawsuit premised on the plaintiff's right to defendant 1 is recognized cannot be accepted without any need for further determination.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)