[약속어음금][집19(1)민,033]
If a land improvement cooperative issues a promissory note for the payment of the purchase price, it is necessary to first review the budget of the cooperative and then determine whether it falls under any item of Article 30 of the Land Improvement Project Act after determining whether it falls under any item of Article 30 of the same Act.
If a land improvement cooperative issues a promissory note for the payment of the purchase price, it shall first examine and examine the budget of the cooperative and decide whether it is necessary to approve from the Do Governor, and it shall not be deemed null and void because it belongs to the matters approved by the Do Governor, unless the relevant items of Article 30 of the Land Improvement Projects Act are determined.
Article 30 of the Land Improvement Project Act (Closure) and Article 10 (b) of the Addenda to the Land Improvement Project Act (Closure);
Dong Mine Chemical Industrial Company
Youngsan Land Improvement Cooperatives
Intervenor joining the Intervenor
Gwangju District Court Decision 70Na17 delivered on October 21, 1970
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Attorney
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant association did not form a meeting of union members under the Land Improvement Business Act at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes, and in such a case, the defendant association did not have any dispute between the parties. The defendant association formed a contract for the sale of the above agrochemicals and issued the Promissory Notes to the plaintiff for the payment of the purchase price of 16,270 won from the plaintiff company to October 4, 196, considering the witness non-party 1 and non-party 2's testimony as stated in the evidence Nos. 6, Eul No. 5-1, respectively, and the whole purport of the party's pleading, the court below held that the defendant association's purchase of the Promissory Notes No. 16,270 won from the non-party company to the plaintiff for the payment of the purchase price of the Promissory Notes No. 1,952,400 won and there is no evidence to find that the defendant association obtained approval from the competent Do governor for the issuance of the Promissory Notes No.
However, if the above evidence cited in the original judgment is examined in detail according to the records, the defendant union issued a promissory note for the purpose of purchasing agrochemicals from the plaintiff company to pay the price. In such a case, it is difficult to say that it is an approved matter of the Do governor without confirming which items of Article 30 (Matters to be resolved at Council) of the Land Improvement Project Act. Furthermore, according to Article 1 and Article 2 of the Evidence No. 5-1 (Agricultural Chemicals Supply Contract) of the above mentioned above, if the above contract and the issuance of promissory note are within the budget, it is necessary to consider the contents of the evidence No. 8 (U.S. Articles of Incorporation) and 30 and 5 of the Land Improvement Project Act, and if the above contract and the issuance of promissory note are within the budget, it can be deemed that the approval of the Do governor can be considered as the approved matters of the Do governor, and the court below should have decided whether to approve the above contract and the issuance of promissory note after the annual review of the budget of the defendant union.
Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, this case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)