Plaintiff (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Seo Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

September 10, 2008

Jeonju District Court Decision 2007Kadan2013 Decided December 21, 2007

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,450,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

【In the absence of any dispute, entry in the evidence of No. 1, No. 3, No. 1, and No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. On August 2006, if the Defendant invested KRW 50 million in full, the Defendant and Nonparty 1 entered into a partnership agreement with the effect that Nonparty 1 produces aggregate and distributes the profits therefrom to KRW 50:50,000,000,000,000,000 for the Defendant’s investment of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. After that, at the construction site of this case, Nonparty 1 requested the Plaintiff, who had operated “,00 won gas station,” to supply the oil to be used in heavy equipment, etc. on credit for the purpose of the production of aggregate, and the Plaintiff consented to the request from August 18, 2006 to October 19, 2006, supplied the aggregate of KRW 20,450,000 to the aggregate site of this case.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant is obliged to pay the above oil price and its delay damages to the plaintiff, which are the partnership debt of the partnership with the non-party 1, because he was provided with oil equivalent to the sum of 20,450,000 won from the plaintiff under the supply contract of this case while running the business with the non-party 1.

(b) Markets:

(1) Therefore, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff supplied oil necessary for the preparation of aggregate on the aggregate site of this case where the Defendant and Nonparty 1 agreed to operate aggregate production as a partnership business. Since all the business practices related to the production of aggregate between the Defendant and Nonparty 1 were decided to take charge of Nonparty 1 in the partnership business agreement between the Defendant and Nonparty 1, it may be viewed that Nonparty 1 was an executive member of the above partnership. On the other hand, the external legal acts of the partnership should be done in the name of all union members or by the method of partnership representative. On the other hand, in the case of partnership representative, in the case of partnership representative, in the case of partnership representative, it is presumed that there is an authority to act as a partnership representative (Article 709 of the Civil Code), it is necessary to present the name of all union members corresponding to the principal or at least to the extent that the other party can be known (the representative or manager, etc. of the ○○ association). In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff supplied oil on the aggregate site of this case directly with the Defendant.

(2) Rather, the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 2, and 3 were written, and the testimony of Non-Party 3 and Non-Party 4 of the first instance trial witness are gathered to the purport of the whole pleadings. ① At the time of the instant aggregate contract, the Defendant and Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 agreed to provide the non-Party 2 with oil, electricity, and spons, etc. necessary for aggregate production and deduct them from the progress payment later. ② Accordingly, Non-Party 1 became aware of the Plaintiff through introduction of Non-Party 2 and began on credit transaction with the Plaintiff. ③ The Plaintiff supplied oil to the instant aggregate site from time to time at the request of Non-Party 1; ③ The Plaintiff also supplied the Plaintiff with the instant aggregate site, and the Plaintiff did not have any direct contact with the Plaintiff. The fact that “Non-Party 1 was installed at the aggregate site: the representative: Non-Party 1’s aggregate site and the Plaintiff did not install any equipment and equipment for Non-Party 2’s construction of the instant aggregate site.”

(3) Therefore, in full view of all the above circumstances, the plaintiff did not supply oil to the defendant and the non-party 1's partnership without knowing the internal relationship between the defendant and the non-party 1, but traded with the non-party 1. The non-party 1 obtained the same business contract (Evidence 1) between the defendant and the non-party 1 as it is difficult for the non-party 1 to receive the oil payment from the defendant and the non-party 2 to receive the oil payment from the aggregate site of this case, and only caused the defendant to claim the oil payment. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the obligation to pay the oil of this case is the partnership obligation cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, so the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)