1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. On May 14, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that D and D are jointly obligated to pay the acquisition amount of KRW 32,280,460, and delay damages to D and B, as D and D received KRW 32,280,460, out of the consignment processing bonds of KRW 70,943,40,00, which were acquired by processing and supplying the bowling part to F (K) jointly operated by the Defendant and B, and D notified the Defendant of the transfer of claims.

As to this, the defendant did not conclude any contract with D, and the parties involved in the same business with B agreed that the representative method of the partnership shall be "joint representative". Thus, even if B entered into a contract with D, it constitutes an unauthorized representation and thus, the defendant shall be deemed null and void.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 709 of the Civil Act, when a manager was or was appointed under a partnership agreement, the managing member shall be presumed to have the power of representation to perform all acts for the partnership to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of the partnership. However, the above provision shall be a voluntary provision, so the above provision shall be deemed to require the consent of all the union members as to the execution of affairs between the parties, and if such agreement exists, the execution of affairs by the partnership shall be valid only when all the union members consent.

As such, if a partner of a cooperative asserts the existence of the above agreement, it is necessary to prove that the other party who performed the legal act between the manager and the other party who performed the legal act agrees to the effect of the legal act in order to realize the presumption that the manager of the partnership has the right to act as the partner of the cooperative, and that the other party who performed the legal act between the manager and the other party has consented to the effect of the legal act in accordance with the above agreement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da62838 delivered on January 25, 2002, see Supreme Court Decision 99Da62838 delivered on January 25, 200) Na 1.