Introduction
Law Firm K&P recently provided legal counsel regarding a case where two out of three partners in a business partnership sought to expel the third partner. This consultation addressed both the procedural requirements for expulsion and the settlement issues that arise following such expulsion.
Legal Framework: Article 718(1) of the Civil Act
Article 718(1) of the Korean Civil Act stipulates that when there are justifiable grounds, the remaining partners may expel another partner through unanimous agreement.
Supreme Court Interpretation: Case 2017Da200702
The Supreme Court, in its 2017Da200702 decision, provided a comprehensive interpretation of what constitutes "justifiable grounds" under Article 718(1) of the Civil Act for partner expulsion.
Definition of "Justifiable Grounds"
The Court established that justifiable grounds include:
1. Clear Grounds for Fault This encompasses situations where a specific partner:
- Fails to perform obligations stipulated in the partnership agreement
- Engages in fraudulent conduct while executing partnership duties
- Demonstrates other clear fault-based behavior
2. Fundamental Breach of Trust Relationship Even without clear fault, justifiable grounds exist when:
- A specific partner causes conflict, discord, and confrontation among partners
- The trust relationship is fundamentally damaged
- Allowing the partner to maintain their position would make smooth joint operation of the partnership impossible
Factors for Determining Justifiable Grounds Based on Trust Relationship Breakdown
When assessing whether partner expulsion based on trust relationship breakdown has justifiable grounds, courts must comprehensively consider:
- Obstruction of Partnership Objectives: Whether and to what extent the specific partner has continuously interfered with achieving partnership goals
- Alternative Remedies: Whether there were other means available to remove the obstruction besides expulsion
- Partnership Agreement Content: The specific terms and conditions of the partnership contract
- Duration and Expiration: The partnership's intended duration and whether it has expired
- Circumstances Leading to Expulsion: The comprehensive background and events that led to the expulsion decision
Case Background: Supreme Court 2017Da200702
Initial Partnership Agreement and Structure
Formation and Terms:
- Parties: Plaintiff (Party A), Defendant 1 (Party B), Defendant 2 (Party C)
- Date: April 1, 2008
- Purpose: Joint hospital operation
- Hospital Name: Initially ○○○○Hospital, later changed to △△△△Hospital
- Duration: 5 years
- Ownership Structure:
- Defendant 1: 5/7 share
- Plaintiff and Defendant 2: 1/7 share each
- Management: Defendant 1 served as hospital director with management authority
Financial Arrangements:
- All investors were required to work at the hospital
- Defendant 1: ₩10 million management allowance + ₩7 million medical duty allowance monthly
- Plaintiff and Defendant 2: ₩14 million medical duty allowance each monthly
Post-Expiration Operations and Renegotiation
Continued Operations: After the 5-year term expired on March 31, 2013, all parties continued operating the hospital without formal renewal.
Renegotiation Process: Beginning in February 2014, parties began discussing contract modifications and renewal. Defendant 1 proposed the following key changes:
- New Term: 3-year period starting April 1, 2014
- Withdrawal Clause: If renewal negotiations fail after term expiration, partners would return ownership shares and withdraw without dissolution procedures, with remaining partners paying settlement amounts (the "Withdrawal Clause")
- Valuation Method: Settlement amounts determined by averaging appraisals from two evaluation agencies
- Compensation Change: Convert medical duty allowances for Plaintiff and Defendant 2 to performance-based pay
Negotiation Breakdown and Conflicts
Parties' Positions:
- Defendant 2: Agreed to the proposed changes
- Plaintiff:
- Initially agreed to performance-based pay conversion, then reversed position
- Rejected defendants' subsequent modifications
- Opposed the Withdrawal Clause as disadvantageous to minority shareholders
Outcome: Despite approximately 4 months of negotiations, no agreement was reached, resulting in serious discord between the parties.
Expulsion Resolution
Procedural Steps:
- July 16, 2014: Defendant 1 issued meeting notice with agenda "Regarding Changes in Partner Status: Partner Expulsion Measures and Share Settlement Processing Plans"
- July 17, 2014: Meeting held where defendants unanimously resolved to expel plaintiff (the "Expulsion Resolution")
Stated Grounds for Expulsion:
- Expiration of partnership agreement period
- Loss of partner qualification due to refusal to renew contract
- Conduct contrary to good faith management of hospital operations, making continued partnership impossible
- Creating distrust among partners
Post-Expulsion Developments and Litigation
Immediate Aftermath:
- Plaintiff continued medical practice while defendants withheld profit distributions
- Plaintiff filed criminal charges for embezzlement against defendants, who received non-prosecution disposition
Legal Proceedings:
- Plaintiff's Claims: Sought confirmation of partner status and payment of dividends and medical duty allowances under partnership agreement
- Lower Court Decision (Seoul High Court, December 7, 2016, Case 2016Na2026998): Ruled that expulsion lacked justifiable grounds, finding no fault on plaintiff's part for failed renegotiation, and granted most of plaintiff's claims
- Supreme Court Decision: Found lower court's interpretation of Article 718(1) "justifiable grounds" legally erroneous, reversed defendant-adverse portions, and remanded to Seoul High Court
Supreme Court's Legal Analysis
Criticism of Lower Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court identified legal errors in the lower court's determination that the expulsion lacked justifiable grounds solely because the plaintiff was not at fault for the failed renegotiation.
Key Considerations for Remand
The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower court should have considered:
1. Post-Expiration Instability: After the agreed term expires, the partnership relationship becomes unstable, necessitating renegotiation based on operational performance if dissolution is not chosen.
2. Reasonableness of Proposed Changes: The Court noted that Defendant 1's proposed changes (performance-based pay, withdrawal clause) did not appear unreasonable or unilaterally disadvantageous to specific partners given the partnership's operational track record. The withdrawal clause, in particular, merely limited partnership dissolution after term expiration.
3. Good Faith Negotiation Obligation: When a majority shareholder and other partners agree to reasonable modifications, the remaining partner must engage in renegotiation discussions in good faith, assuming continued partnership operations.
Remand Instructions
The Supreme Court directed the lower court to conduct additional proceedings to determine:
- Reasonableness of Plaintiff's Position: Whether the plaintiff had reasonable grounds for refusing to negotiate the proposed changes
- Causation of Trust Breakdown: What caused the destruction of trust relationships between plaintiff and defendants
- Overall Assessment: Whether the expulsion resolution had justifiable grounds based on comprehensive review of all circumstances
Conclusion
This landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies that partner expulsion under Article 718(1) of the Civil Act requires a nuanced analysis extending beyond simple fault-finding. Courts must examine the broader context of partnership dynamics, the reasonableness of proposed changes, and the good faith obligations of all parties in determining whether "justifiable grounds" exist for expulsion. The decision emphasizes that failed renegotiation alone does not preclude finding justifiable grounds, particularly when fundamental trust relationships have been compromised through the negotiation process.
Tel. +82 32 864 8300
Email: info@kimnpark.com
Please Visit our Website:
