(a) An expulsion requirement for a member from an unlimited partnership or a limited partnership;

(b) The case dismissing a request for a declaration of expulsion made to the representative member of a limited partnership company who has committed an unlawful act, such as embezzlement of corporate contributions;

A. The expulsion of a member, such as a partnership company and a limited partnership company, is deprived of membership against the will of the member in question and thus has a significant impact on the interests of the member in question. Thus, even if the member in question falls under the expulsion requirement under the Commercial Code, it shall be deemed that such expulsion can be made only when there are circumstances where the existence of the company is deemed to be difficult in economic and credit aspects, taking into account the personal characteristics of the member in question, and it is inevitable to make public notice of the internal organization and facilitate the implementation of the company. In determining this, the result should be reasonably considered such as comparing the interests of the member in question to be lost due to such expulsion with those of the member in question.

(b) The case dismissing the request for expulsion made by the representative member of a limited partnership company in consideration of the amount of embezzlement made to the company, the possibility of recovery, etc. although he/she committed unlawful acts, such as embezzlement of corporate contributions;

Articles 220(1) and 269 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff Limited Partnership Company

Defendant

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant is expelled from the employee of the plaintiff company.

1. If Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 8 and witness testimony gather the whole purport of pleading, the defendant, a joint representative member of the plaintiff company, voluntarily 2,561,508 won of the plaintiff company's public funds between April 20, 1985 and June 21, 1985. The plaintiff's office leased by the non-party company's non-party 1 was consumed voluntarily around December 3, 1985 with the rent deposit amount of KRW 3,00,000 returned and returned to the non-party 2,58,949 won and embezzled each of the above 2,68,949 won for the plaintiff company's compensation claim against the defendant (the non-party 12,820,457 won). The plaintiff company's remaining judgment of the court of first instance and the Busan High Court's judgment of 196Da197979 decided Oct. 31, 198 and the defendant's remaining judgment of 197.

2. However, if Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, 5 were collected from the witness testimony to the whole purport of his testimony, the plaintiff company was established as 1,300,000 won with unlimited liability company and 8's limited liability company was established by their respective investment on July 4, 197. On July 30, 197, the defendant acquired 7's shares from non-party 6's general partner and acquired 0's shares to 00,000 won, and owned 00,000 won and more than 0,000 won with unlimited liability company's share to 60,000,000 won and more than 0,000 won with unlimited liability company's share as of August 24, 1979, and the non-party 3's general partner and representative director's share as of April 20, 198.

3. The expulsion of a false member is an act of depriving a certain member of his qualification against his will, and is not recognized as a so-called physical company such as a merger company and limited partnership company. This is because, in a personal company, since the trust relationship between members becomes the basis for the existence of a company, the personal elements of the member are more strict provisions in relation to the entry and retirement of the member. On the other hand, even if the trust relationship is against his/her will, it is necessary to compulsorily exclude the member who has lost his/her trust, even if the trust relationship is against his/her will.

Such expulsion of a member is strictly stipulated in the Commercial Act, but since the expulsion of a member is deprived of membership against the will of the member concerned and thus has a significant impact on the interests of the member concerned, the expulsion of a member can only be made if it is inevitable to publicly announce the internal organization of the company and facilitate the implementation of the company. In determining this, the result should be reasonably considered, such as comparing the interests of the member concerned to be lost due to the expulsion and the interests of the company to be gained by expulsion.

4. In the instant case, the Defendant’s embezzlement of the Plaintiff company’s money constitutes “when there is an unlawful act in relation to the conduct of business or representative of the Plaintiff company” under Articles 269 and 220(1)3 of the Commercial Act. However, since the starting date of its incorporation to the time Nonparty 3 became a member of the Plaintiff company, the Plaintiff company maintained and cultivated almost by the Defendant only through the force of only the Defendant married. The pertinent embezzlement was less than the initial date of Nonparty 3’s membership; the amount of embezzlement of the Defendant was less than the size of the Plaintiff company’s management; the Defendant’s embezzlement is less than the size of the Plaintiff company’s management, and some of them are recovered by compulsory execution and it is anticipated that there is no difficulty in recovering the amount. In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s embezzlement itself alone does not make it difficult to continue to exist as the Plaintiff company, or that the name of the Defendant’s internal organization is considerably unreasonable to make it easier to conduct business, compared with the Plaintiff’s profits to the Plaintiff company.

5. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jink Chuncheon (Presiding Judge)