(a) Whether the status of a member is succeeded to by his/her heir;

(b) Criteria timing for asset assessment in calculating the equity between the retired partners and other partners;

(a) If one member of a cooperative dies, ipso facto withdrawal from the partnership relationship pursuant to Article 717 of the Civil Act, and in particular, if the heir does not agree to succeed to the status of the deceased member under the partnership agreement, the status of the deceased member shall not be succeeded to the heir.

B. The calculation between the withdrawing partner and the other partner should be based on the partnership’s property status at the time of withdrawal pursuant to Article 719(1) of the Civil Code, so the standard time for asset assessment should be deemed to be at the time of withdrawal in calculating the shares.

(a) Article 717(b) of the Civil Act;

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and 16 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 85Na421 delivered on October 31, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

When one member of the partnership dies from the partnership, the status of the deceased member shall not be succeeded to by the heir unless the heir agreed to succeed to the status of the deceased member under the partnership agreement as a matter of course pursuant to Article 717 of the Civil Code, and in particular, the status of the deceased member shall not be succeeded to by the heir. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiffs, after the death of November 10, 1978, who was the heir of the non-party 1, who succeeded to the status of the union member after he succeeded to the status of the union member in accordance with the practices of the association, but voluntarily withdrawn from the association of this case as the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case after the plaintiff succeeded to the status of the deceased member in accordance with the practices of the association of this case.

Examining the evidence adoption and cooking process by the court below in light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 719(1) of the Civil Code, it provides that the calculation between the withdrawing partner and the other partner shall be based on the partnership’s property status at the time of withdrawal. Thus, in calculating its equity, the base time for asset assessment shall be deemed to be at the time of withdrawal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the amount of share refund to the plaintiffs according to the market price appraisal value of the association's property based on the deceased non-party 1's death appraised by the non-party 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, even if the above appraiser's appraisal contents are examined according to the records, it is not recognized that the result of appraisal is not unfair or reliable, and thus, the court below's measure of evidence increase is just and there is no violation

As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on macroficial evidence, borrowed money from the deceased non-party 1 to the association of this case from time to time on the ground that the plaintiff borrowed money from the association of this case from time to February 3, 1979 after the death of the above non-party 1, and confirmed the fact that the total amount of the borrowed money was 9,560,260, and compared with the records, the court below's determination of the above facts is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

All appeals are without merit.

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 Man-hee (Presiding Justice)