Whether or not a dividend may be claimed without going through liquidation procedures after the termination of an agricultural contract.

In relation to a partnership relationship under a partnership agreement, liquidation money shall not be claimed unless it has gone through liquidation procedures even after the partnership relationship has been dissolved.

Article 724 of the Civil Act

66Da1756 delivered on December 6, 1966, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 64Da220 delivered on December 22, 196 (Supreme Court Decision 61Da6135 delivered on December 6, 196, Supreme Court Decision 724(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (62A7061) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1252 Decided August 24, 1965

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 527,484 won and 5 percent per annum from the next day of the invoice to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of 527,484 won and 5 percent per annum from the next day of service to the day of full payment.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials.

When the plaintiff and the defendant enter into a licensing sales agreement without a fixed period of December 11, 1959, the plaintiff paid 100,000 won to the defendant as security deposit, 2. The plaintiff's monthly allowance shall be KRW 7,500 to the Government of Gyeonggi-do; 3. The plaintiff's monthly allowance shall be KRW 7,500 to the defendant's settlement of accounts; 4. The profit and loss shall be equal, but the settlement of accounts shall be made at the same time; 10,000 won shall be paid to the defendant; 1.0,000 won shall be paid to the plaintiff from February 1, 1960 to March 3, 1961. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the plaintiff extended the market of three sides in the same Dok-gun, Jeoncheon-gun, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the same Do Jinsan-do, and the same Dok-si market.

As the plaintiff's above contract with the defendant was revoked on August 13, 1962, and the defendant cancelled the above contract for profits and losses with the defendant 40,00 won and the remaining amount of 417,07 won which were paid at the time of the above contract for the defendant 1 to April 30, 1962, and 150,00 won which were less than 30,000 won per annum for the plaintiff's expansion of markets, and the defendant's remaining amount of 40,09,00 won which were 40,000 won and 9,000 won which were 60,000 won and 40,000 won which were 60,000 won and 40,000 won which were 10,000 won and 50,000 won which were 10,000 won and 9,00 won which were 6,00 won and 9,000 won.

Judges Han Man-soo (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-dong