(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2017.12.14 2017나21889

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2017.12.14 2017나21889

정산금

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 court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion to the same extent as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a member who has granted the right of representation to her husband E and attended the meeting of the association, and only partially transferred his/her share to KR after receiving 120 million won as a part of the investment money, and thereafter, he/she recovered his/her share. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the premise that she was a member other than the plaintiff and was transferred to KR.

B. Even if the plaintiff was a member of the union who had attended the meeting of the union, and only received part of the investment amount from K, according to the evidence Nos. 13 and No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2, the rules of the union stipulate that "where a regular member of the union wishes to withdraw, he/she shall transfer his/her own share to a third party, and shall obtain approval from the board of directors, and shall transfer it after obtaining approval from the board of directors," and that part of the procedures and methods for transferring the shares of the union are not prescribed. However, the board of directors of November 19, 2005 "K confirms that he/she will hold 2/11 shares and act as an agent of the union." In light of these facts, regardless of the internal investment share between the plaintiff and K, at least the plaintiff's share of the union shall be deemed to have been transferred to K, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

The fact that the plaintiff recovered his/her share is nothing more than an internal relationship arranged through the relevant lawsuit.

K against the plaintiff and E, the plaintiff paid 120 million won to E and received the shares of the partnership.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.04.06 2015나13371

-창원지방법원통영지원 2020.08.27 2019가합10992

-전주지방법원남원지원 2015.04.30 2014가합1063

-대전지방법원논산지원 2016.04.20 2015가합90

-대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2019다207851 판결