Selection of a member representing the company in a lawsuit between a limited partnership company and its representative member;

Where a limited partnership company files a lawsuit against a representative member and there is no member representing the company, it is legitimate to select a representative member by a decision of a majority of other members in accordance with Article 211 of the Commercial Act which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 269 of the same Act.

Articles 211 and 269 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff Limited Partnership Company

Defendant 1 and one other

Chuncheon District Court (74Gahap10) in the first instance trial

(1) From among the parts against the defendant, etc. in the original judgment, the defendant, etc. jointly and severally ordered the plaintiff to pay the amount exceeding the amount of 648,740 won and the amount of 5 percent per annum from February 28, 1974 to the full payment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(2) The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed, respectively.

(3) All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts of the first and second trials, and such two parts shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant, etc.

(4) A provisional execution may be effected only under the above Paragraph (1).

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 5,698,779 won with an annual interest of 5% from the next day from the service of the complaint to the full payment system. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant et al. and a judgment of provisional execution.

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,820,500 won with the rate of 5 percent per annum from February 28, 1974 to the full payment. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant et al., both the first and second instances, and provisional execution.

The part of the original judgment against the defendant, etc. shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

(1) First, we examine the Defendants’ legal representative’s main defense.

The defendants' attorney at the time of the lawsuit on January 25, 1974, because the general partner representing the plaintiff company was only one defendant and the company was to bring an objection against the defendant 2 who is one limited partner, only the defendant 1 can represent the plaintiff company. It is inappropriate to appoint the non-party 1 who is the limited partner of the above company as a representative for the lawsuit, and even if the non-party 2 takes over the lawsuit thereafter, the taking over cannot be converted to a legitimate lawsuit because the non-party 2 is illegal. Further, it is improper for the non-party 1 to take over the lawsuit again on January 29, 1975, which is the non-party 1 to whom the qualification of the representative was lost, and it is not unlawful to do so. Thus, in light of the records, the plaintiff company's representative as a limited partnership company and the non-party 2 who is the general partner and the non-party 3 who is the above non-party 1 who is the joint defendant cannot bring an objection against the above non-party 2's representative and the above company's representative.

In the first instance, the defendant's attorney asserted that "the defendant embezzled 354,086 won in total as meeting expenses, entertainment expenses, partnership expenses, office expenses, repair and maintenance expenses, consumption expenses, printing expenses, rental expenses, etc. by forging receipts, etc. with the defendant's joint signature, etc.," and later, the defendant's attorney asserted that "after the settlement of accounts that there are unpaid or unpaid payments in accordance with the 1970 and the settlement of accounts in 1971, a quorum was submitted to the general meeting of members and embezzled 642,240 won in total as a disguised calculation on the balance sheet," which means that it would bring about a change in the basis of the cause of the claim, and thus, the above assertion of the plaintiff's above change does not bring about a change in the basis of the claim, and therefore there is no reason to do so.

(2) The following merits shall be determined:

(가) 원고회사는 보통여객자동차운수사업 및 그 부대사업 등을 목적으로 1968.3.12. 설립된 합자회사로서 피고들은 1969.7.14. 위 회사에 입사하여 피고 1은 위 회사의 무한 책임사원으로 피고 2는 유한책임사원으로 있으며, 기존 유한책임사원이던 원고선정대표자 소외 1과 소외 3등 총4명의 사원으로 구성되여 있는 사실은 앞에서 본바와 같고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제6호증(판결정본), 갑 제11 내지 14호증(각 입금전표), 병 제3호증(판결), 병 제6호증의 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,12,15,18,19(법인세신고서 및 결의서 표지), 병 제7호증(납세증명원)의 각 기재에 원심증인 소외 3, 4, 5의 각 증언과 원심의 검증결과(기록) 및 당사자변론의 전취지을 종합하여 보면, 피고 1은 원고회사의 대표사원으로 있음을 기화로 자기의 처인 피고 2와 공모하여 1969년도부터 1972년도의 원고회사 영업연도의 사원총회를 개최함에 있어서 피고들이외의 원고회사 사원인 소외 1 및 소외 3등에게는 전혀 그 소집통지를 함이 없이 피고들만이 출석한 가운데 결산보고 및 각종 결의를 하였는바, ① 피고 2는 원고회사의 업무에 전혀 참여한 사실이 없음에도 원고회사 정관상에도 없는 회장이라는 명칭일 부여받은후 동 피고의 월급명목으로 1970.1월부터 1971.12월말까지는 매월 금 30,000원씩, 1972.1월부터 같은해 4월까지는 매월 금 35,000원씩 합계 금 860,000원을 피고 2에게 부정지출하여 이를 피고 등의 생활비 등에 임의소비하고, ②1969.12.15.부터 1972.12월말경까지 사이에 원고회사 사무실에서 업무상 보관중이던 회사공금중에서 축의금명목으로 합계 금 9,500원, 여비명목으로 합계 금 54,330원, 소송비명목으로 금 140,000원, 근저당권설정 및 말소비명목으로 합계 금 41,700원, 광열비명목으로 합계 금 10,377원, 1969.12월 노조비명목으로 금 9,016원등 총합계 금 264,923원을 부정 인출하여 피고 등의 생활비 등에 임의소비하고, ③1970.5월 일자 불상경 서울특별시 동대문구 용두동에 있는 전국택시합승운송조합 연합회에서 원고회사로 환불된 이행보험료 합계 금 109,125원을 피고 1이 원고회사의 업무집행사원의 자격으로 수령하여 이를 회사에 입금하지 아니하고 피고들의 생활비, 잡비 등에 임의 소비하였으며, ④1970.6월부터 1972.12월말까지 소외 6등 원고회사 지입차주들로부터 1970.6월부터 같은해 7월까지는 매월 금 370원씩, 같은해 8월부터 같은해 12월까지는 매월 금 600원씩 합계 금 577,420원을 강원도 택시합승운송조합에 납부할 조합비 명목으로 징수하여 위 조합에 납부하거나 원고회사에 입금하지 아니하고 피고들의 생활비 등에 소비하고, ⑤1971.2.11.부터 같은해 6.23.까지 원고회사의 지입차주들인 소외 5, 6, 7, 8등으로부터 소위, 티오(T.O)대금명목으로 1인당 금 30,000원 내지 금 50,000원씩 합계 금 150,000원을 징수하여 이을 회사에 입금치않고 피고들의 교제비, 잡비등에 소비하고, ⑥1972.2월 부터 같은해 7월경까지 원고회사 지입차주인 소외 5, 6으로부터 같은해 2월분 위 수탁료 각 금 9,000원, 소외 9, 10, 11, 12의 같은해 3월분 위 수탁료 각 금 9,000원, 소외 7, 13의 같은해 5월분 위 수탁료 각 금 9,000원, 소외 8의 같은해 6월분 위 수탁료 금 9,000원등 합계 금 81,000원을 징수하여 이를 원고회사에 입금치않고, 그시마다 피고들의 생활비 또는 잡비 등에 임의소비하였으며, ⑦1970년도와 1971년도의 각 영업년도의 손익계산서, 임금지불대장등에는 급료미불금이 전혀 없는데도 불구하고 1970년도 결산서상에는 금 275,000원, 1971년도 결산서상에는 금 367,240원의 각 미불금이 있는양 위장 계산하여 합계 금 692,240원을 인출한 다음 피고 등의 생활비 등에 임의소비하였고, ⑧1970.6.23. 피고 2는 원고회사의 회장도 아니며 또 회사의 용무와는 관계없이 서울에 갔음에도 불구하고 마치 회사의 용무로 출장하는 양 여비지출명목으로 금 7,000원을 허위지출하여 이를 임의소비하였으며, ⑨1969년도 원고회사 영업회계의 대차대조표상의 이익금은 금 1,676원이였으므로 위 수입금을 회사사원들에게 배당하지 아니하는 한 1970년 수입계정에 이월하여야 함에도 불구하고 1970년도의 대차대조표, 손익계산서에서는 1969년도에서 이월할 것이 없는 것처럼 불법계정하여 위 금 1,676원을 피고등이 임의소비하고, ⑩1972.9월부터 같은해 12월까지 원고회사의 업무에 전혀 관여한 일이 없는 소외 14를 원고회사 업무보조원으로 하여 월급명목으로 매월 금 20,000원씩 합계 금 80,000원을 허위인출하여 그시마다 피고 등의 생활비 등에 임의소비하였고, (11)1971.9월부터 1972.12월까지 원

The high company and the non-party 15, the telephone fee of 5510 telephone numbers installed and used by non-party 15 in Chuncheon-si automatic (hereinafter omitted), which is not in a lower-level relationship, shall be charged with embezzlement of 2,794,540 won, which the Defendants consumed voluntarily, and embezzlement of 2,794,540 won, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the Plaintiff. The testimony of the court below and the non-party 16 of the witness of the court below against the above recognition is not believed and there is no other counter-proof.

(B) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant's 1 and 3 non-party 1 were not aware of the facts charged to the non-party 1's non-party 6's assertion that the non-party 2's testimony was not recorded in the above 3-party 1's sales contract and the non-party 3-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-6's non-party 1'

(C) However, from among the money embezzled by the Defendants, Defendant 2's defense that Defendant 1 paid 860,00 won to each Plaintiff company, and Defendant 1 paid 1,285,800 won to each Plaintiff company. Thus, the Defendants' defense that Defendant 1 paid 1,285,80 won to each Plaintiff company was not disputed, and Defendant 1 did not have any dispute over its establishment, and Defendant 2,2,3 (a certificate, receipt, balance of deposit), Eul evidence 14-1,2,3 (a certificate, a receipt, a receipt, and a certificate of deposit) and the testimony of the above witness and the arguments of the parties. In light of the above evidence, Defendant 2,794,540 won embezzled by the Defendants, Defendant 1 did not have any other evidence to acknowledge Defendant 1's deposit 2,80,000 won to Defendant 1, Defendant 16, 1971, Defendant 284, and Defendant 28,508,197.

(3) Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to five percent per annum of the Civil Procedure Act from February 28, 1974 to the full payment system, with the records that the part of the complaint is the next day from February 28, 1974 to the next day from February 28, 1974. Since the part of the original judgment different from this conclusion is unfair, the part of the original judgment is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal and the remainder of the appeal by the defendant et al. are dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89, 92, 93, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)