logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.10.31 2015다74916
정산금
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that, in accordance with Article 719(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share ratio out of the partnership property appraised based on the partnership property status as at the expiration date, as the instant hospital was terminated on December 31, 2012, but the Defendant continued to operate the instant hospital.

If a partner withdraws from the partnership or the remaining partner continues to operate the partnership business after the expiration of the term of the partnership agreement, it shall be identical in that it cannot go through the receiver on the premise of the completion of partnership business. Thus, even in the latter case, the amount equivalent to the portion of the withdrawing partner's share shall be refunded out of the partnership property appraised based on the partnership property status

The lower judgment is in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on whether liquidation occurred.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court did not adopt the result of the appraiserJ’s appraisal that evaluates the liquidation value of the instant hospital on the premise of liquidation, and applied the cost method to the medical devices, etc. of the instant hospital as of the expiration date of the term of the instant agreement, and calculated the net assets and operating rights of the instant hospital according to the result of the appraiser I’s appraisal assessed by applying the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act mutatis mutandis to the operating rights, and with regard to the operating rights, the Plaintiff used the same specialized department in the location of the instant hospital, using a similar trade name.

arrow