1. Article 8 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 7273, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”) provides that a cooperative and a federation shall be exempted from any charge other than taxes imposed on the business and property of the State and a local government. Article 7 of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Act No. 4563, Jun. 11, 1993; hereinafter “Development Gains Act”) and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restitution of Development Gains Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13956, Aug. 12, 1993; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Act”) provide that a specific entity, such as the State, a local government, and an agricultural cooperative, shall be exempted from all or part of development charges.

However, each of the above provisions is a special provision on Article 3, 5, 6, and 13 of the Development Gains Tax Act, which is a general corporation for the imposition of charges, and Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and Article 7 of the Development Gains Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Act are contradictory and contradictory. Although Article 8 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 6018 of September 7, 1999; hereinafter “Closed Agricultural Cooperatives Act”) provides that a cooperative and the Federation shall be exempted from charges on the business and property of the State and local governments, the above provision shall be interpreted first of all to enhance the quality of life of farmers through improving the economic, social, and cultural status of farmers and strengthening the competitiveness of agriculture, and to contribute to the balanced development of the national economy, Article 8 of the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Act shall be amended first of all, by integrating Article 97 of the new Agricultural Cooperatives Act into the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, which is distributed to the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, and the National Ginseng Cooperatives Federation.

2. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the provisions of Article 7 of the Development Gains Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Development Gains Act, based on the principle of preference of the former Act, shall be applied more preferentially than those of Article 8 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, inasmuch as the provisions that exempt agricultural cooperatives from charges on their business and property were established from July 29, 1961, which was the date of the enactment and enforcement of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, which was repealed, solely for the reasons stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of priority of the new Act and the interpretation of the above provisions, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)