logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.07.18 2019나447
정산금등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The gist of the instant claim is that the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 5,051,079 upon the termination of the agreement with the Defendant and KRW 6,891,079 in total,00,000 paid by the Plaintiff to C.

2. In a decision-making relationship, the partnership relationship is terminated by the occurrence of a cause prescribed by the partnership agreement in general, the agreement of all union members, the success or failure of a business which is the object of the partnership, the request for dissolution, etc., and, in case of the partnership relationship being terminated, unless there is a separate agreement between the parties, the remaining assets and the value of the remaining assets to be distributed to union members as a common example are finalized at the time of the completion of the liquidation procedure. Thus, in principle, the partnership cannot claim a distribution of the remaining assets under the circumstance that the liquidation procedure is not completed. However, if only the remaining assets remain, it shall not be treated as the remaining assets of the partnership, but each union member may immediately claim a distribution of the remaining assets for its members who hold the remaining

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da31472 Decided December 8, 1998, etc.). The fact that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D jointly purchased 50 tons ckes from early October 2016 to enter into an agreement to engage in mid-term rental or service business (hereinafter referred to as “instant club business” and “instant association”) and accordingly, the Defendant purchased ckes under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant ckes”) and the Defendant was in charge of fund management, such as purchase of sales from mid-term rental, etc., does not conflict between the parties.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the partnership relationship of this case is terminated and other liquidation procedures are terminated, and it is otherwise recognized.

arrow