beta
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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) each entry of Gap evidence 26 to 35 (including each number) (including each number) which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion as evidence additionally submitted at the court of first instance; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of second instance as stated in Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. 1) Determination as to the additional argument as to the claim for agreed amount claim 1) Whether C withdraws from the partnership or not, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, on February 9, 2017, demanded that the Plaintiff be paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff as a penalty for a breach of a partnership agreement without any specific reason, and collected the amount within the cosmetic in which the Plaintiff’s career, etc. was written.
In addition, C continued conflict with the Plaintiff without the intent to maintain the agreement on the same business, and C was closely wraped with the Plaintiff on February 13, 2017.
Therefore, the relationship between the Plaintiff and C was terminated on February 9, 2017 by the withdrawal of the company's company or the withdrawal of the union members. Since the union's property was owned solely by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff may dispose of the union's property without the consent of C, and the agreement of this case is valid.
B) Determination of the Civil Act is a contract under which two or more persons agree to jointly operate a business by mutual investment (Article 703(1) of the Civil Act). A member’s voluntary withdrawal is a kind of termination as to the association agreement and must be made by an expression of intent to other members. However, such expression of intent does not necessarily have to be explicitly or explicitly, and whether a member has expressed his/her intent of voluntary withdrawal should be determined in accordance with the general principles of interpretation of juristic act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7405, Sept. 20, 2007).