beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 35,117,80 to the Plaintiff the annual rate of KRW 15% from April 29, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From February 2015, the Plaintiff engaged in wholesale and retail business of fishery products with the trade name “D”, and the Defendant, along with the husband C, operated “E” in the name of the Defendant.
B. C operated a fishery product copon store in the name of the Defendant at the F Changdong store. Since April 2013, G worked as an employee of the Defendant at the F Changdong store, and commenced business with the Defendant, C from July 2013, and operated and managed E along with the Defendant and C.
C. From February 14, 2015 to October 24, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied the fishery products equivalent to KRW 76,739,100 to E upon request from G. The Defendant did not pay KRW 35,117,80 among them.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. We examine the case where two or more persons agreed to jointly operate a business by mutual investment and jointly operate a specific business as a contract, it constitutes a partnership agreement under the Civil Act. According to the facts of recognition as above, the relationship between the defendant and G runs a joint business for the sale of fishery products by mutual investment in accordance with the partnership agreement and allocating the proceeds therefrom in accordance with the agreement.
B. In addition, barring any special circumstance, a partnership creditor is entitled to claim repayment in proportion to the shares of each partner or equally with respect to the partnership creditor, and if the partnership debt is particularly borne by an act of commercial activity for all the union members, the joint and several liability of the union members shall be determined by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919, Mar. 13, 1998). The obligation to pay goods to the plaintiff of G constitutes a partnership debt that was borne by managing the partnership company, which constitutes a case where it was caused by an act of commercial activity for all the union members.