logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.01.13 2014나1430
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) this Court shall dismiss “this Court” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance as “court of the court of first instance” and, in addition, as the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case was terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination, and that the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 250 million won and damages for delay based on the loan certificate (Evidence A 1) prepared and issued by the defendant to the plaintiff for the return of the investment amount.

B. 1) In relation to a related legal partnership, the partnership relationship is terminated by the occurrence of a cause prescribed by the partnership agreement, the agreement of all union members, the success or failure of the business which is the object of the partnership, the claim for dissolution, etc. In addition, in relation to a partnership relationship with two parties, even if one of them withdraws, the partnership relationship is terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da19208, Sept. 6, 1996; 95Da4957, May 30, 197). In addition, in cases where the partnership is dissolved, but there is no way to treat the remaining assets as the remaining business of the partnership, and only distribution of remaining assets remains, each union member may immediately request the distribution of remaining assets within the scope of its ratio of distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da35713, Apr. 21, 200).

Since the plaintiff and the defendant do not need separate liquidation procedures, the plaintiff's remaining assets exceed the distribution ratio within the scope of the distribution ratio of the remaining assets.

arrow