[1] The legal relationship as to partnership property where one person withdraws from the partnership relationship with two or more persons

[2] In a case where one of the partners, who invested in an agreement and performed an investment obligation under the agreement, has been entirely excluded from the partnership relationship and the remaining partners have been engaged in the original business, whether it is possible to claim dissolution of the partnership due to unavoidable reasons (affirmative), and in such a case, whether the partner who performed the investment obligation can seek the return of the investment amount (affirmative)

[1] In the partnership relationship with two persons, that is, when one of them withdraws, the partnership relationship shall be terminated without dissolution, and the partnership property belonging to the partnership's joint ownership shall belong to the sole ownership of the remaining union members, and shall be calculated by withdrawal between the withdrawing person and the remaining person.

[2] In a case where a partner, after having invested an investment under an agreement, has immediately been in a partnership with the parties to the agreement, and thereafter a partner who has performed the said investment obligation has been engaged exclusively in the partnership with the remaining partners, he/she may demand dissolution due to unavoidable reasons, and the partner who has performed the said investment obligation may seek the return of the amount invested by him/her as a result of the withdrawal from the partnership.

[1] Articles 703 and 719 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 703 and 720 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da19208 delivered on September 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2982), Supreme Court Decision 95Da22511, 22528 delivered on October 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3454 delivered on February 22, 1991), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26300 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1065), Supreme Court Decision 92Da21098 delivered on February 9, 193 (Gong193, 1935) (Gong193, 1935)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Gangseo-dong General Law Office, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na9078 delivered on October 14, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant contributed to 40% of the total of 75,00,000,000 and 20,000,000 won for the calculation of expenses incurred in the repair of the facilities and 75,000,000 won for lease, which are the sum of the expenses incurred in the repair of the facilities and 20,000,000 won for the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to pay 40% of the profits generated from the main management to the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid 36,383,20,00 won for the expenses incurred in the removal of the existing facilities and the internal facilities construction, etc. in accordance with the agreement, and the plaintiff performed almost its investment obligation. However, as a conflict of opinion on the amount that the plaintiff had to invest during the repair of the facilities, the business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was actually interrupted prior to the commencement of the main business relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Based on its recognition, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that held that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking cancellation of the agreement on the partnership and restitution of the original status is an expression of intent to withdraw from the partnership relationship and a claim for return of the amount of investment arising therefrom.

In other words, in a partnership relationship with two persons, the partnership relationship is terminated without dissolution, and the partnership relationship is not followed if one of them withdraws from the partnership, and the partnership property belonging to the partnership shall belong to the sole ownership of the remaining union members, and shall be calculated upon withdrawal between the withdrawing person and the remaining person (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da22511, 22528 delivered on October 14, 1997, etc.). In a partnership relationship with one of the partners, where a partner who has performed the above investment obligation has been in a partnership relationship immediately and without separation from the partnership relationship, and a partner who has performed the investment obligation is able to claim the return of the amount of his own investment as a result of the withdrawal (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da2630 delivered on February 22, 1991, etc.).

In this case, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, which accepted the plaintiff's claim and assertion, is justifiable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, nor there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the withdrawal of the two partnership contracts and the calculation therefrom, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)