2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff has a claim for the amount of KRW 27,518,970 against the D Association Corporation. Since the above obligations of D Association Corporation are obligations arising out of commercial activities, the defendants, who are members of D Association, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount of KRW 27,518,970 and damages for delay to the plaintiff with D Association Corporation pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act.

B. Article 16(1) of the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises provides that farmers, etc. may establish an agricultural partnership with five or more members, and Article 16(8) of the said Act provides that the provisions concerning partnership under the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the agricultural partnership except as otherwise provided for in the above Act.

However, the application of the Civil Act is in principle permitted within the scope that does not go against its nature. The reason why the obligation of a cooperative is regarded as a partner's obligation is that a cooperative is merely a contract between its members and is not a subject of ownership of rights and obligations, and therefore, it is because only the partner becomes a subject of ownership of rights and obligations in legal relations surrounding a cooperative. In full view of the fact that the purport of Article 17 (3) of the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises within the limit of the amount of investment for which the partner has paid the liability of the cooperative member if the plaintiff acknowledged joint and several liability of the cooperative member as asserted by the plaintiff is dismissed, it is reasonable to deem that the legal principle that the obligation of a cooperative is "debt of a cooperative member" is not applicable mutatis mutandis to the legal relations of a cooperative association that becomes a subject of independent rights and obligations

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants premised on this premise is without merit without further examining the remainder.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff .