2. The defendant's election of non-party 10 according to the election of the president of the partnership held on September 23, 2008 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

(a) Conducting the election of the head of the defendant association;

(1) The Defendant Cooperative is a local livestock cooperative that covers Gwangju Metropolitan City and Jeonnam-do Won established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and the Plaintiff and the Nonparty 10 are those who run for the election of the head of the cooperative that was conducted by the Defendant Cooperative on September 23, 2008.

(2) The Defendant Union publicly announced the election of the head of the association on September 3, 2008; the Defendant Union’s election commission made the electoral registry as to the remaining 524 persons, excluding Nonparty 11,12, from among the 532 members, who were listed as of September 4, 2008 to September 8, 2008, and examined the qualifications of Nonparty 13 and 14 on September 12, 2008 and September 22, 2008, and confirmed that Nonparty 13 had already been excluded from the electoral registry, and the deceased Nonparty 14 decided to exclude them from the electoral registry to additionally exclude them from the electoral registry, thereby establishing the electoral registry including Nonparty 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. (hereinafter “instant six members”).

(3) At the election of the president of an association (hereinafter “instant election”) implemented on September 23, 2008, 517 members, who were registered on the electoral registry, participated in the voting, and the Plaintiff 257 votes, and Nonparty 10 was elected as the head of the association (e.g., Table 1) by receiving each of the 259 votes (e., Table 1).

(4) Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, and Nonparty 1 were the same household as a father-child relationship or a married couple relationship, and respectively, cast their votes in the instant election.

B. Relevant statutes and articles of association of the defendant association

【Agricultural Cooperatives Act】

The purpose of the item cooperative is to increase the economic, social, and cultural status of its members by providing necessary skills, funds, information, etc. to its members who engage in the livestock breeding business of items or type of business, the dairy farming business, the fish farming business, the fish farming business, and the livestock farming business prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and by promoting the expansion of markets for agricultural and livestock products produced by its members and the smooth circulation of such products.

Article 110 (Qualification, etc. for Membership) (1) Members of an item cooperative shall be farmers who have their addresses, addresses, or places of business within its territory and who meet the qualifications determined by the articles of association.

Article 29 (Withdrawal) (1) Members shall be notified of their intention to withdraw from the agricultural cooperative and may withdraw.

(2) Any partner who falls under one of the following subparagraphs, shall automatically withdraw:

1. When he is disqualified as a member;

(3) The board of directors under Article 43 shall confirm whether all or part of its members falls under the provisions of each subparagraph of paragraph (2).

Article 43 (Board of Directors) (3) The following matters shall be resolved upon:

1. Examinations of qualifications for and approval for joining a cooperative;

[Articles of Association]

Article 9 (Members) (1) Members of our unions shall be those falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A farmer who has his domicile, abode, or place of business within the district of a cooperative and has raised at least five milk milk;

Article 11 (Withdrawal) (2) In case where a member falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he shall automatically withdraw:

1. When he is disqualified as a member;

(4) The board of directors of a cooperative shall confirm whether all or part of its members falls under the provisions of each subparagraph of paragraph (2). In such cases, the confirmation for all members shall be made at least once a year.

Article 49 (Resolution of Board of Directors) (1) The board of directors shall resolve the following matters:

1. Examinations of qualifications for and approval for joining a cooperative;

Article 62 (Voting) (1) A person who has a voting franchise and is listed on the electoral register.

(2) A cooperative shall prepare the electoral register on the basis of the list of partners as of June before the election day, but shall prepare it on the basis of a list of partners as of 180 days before the expiration date of the term of validity of executives before the election day, but shall exclude those who are not partners, 180 days before the expiration date of the term of validity of executives, but in the case of an election of

Article 63 (Voting Right) (1) A voting right may be exercised only to a person who has joined as a partner not later than 180 days before the expiration date of the executive term.

[Method of Managing Members and Quasi-members (e.g., method of managing members)]

3. Actual status survey of partners;

(1) Actual status of association members

The board of directors shall regularly verify whether a member has qualifications at least once a year, and shall verify whether the member has qualifications for all the members at least once a year.

(2) Actual status surveys

1. Methods of investigation;

(a) A disqualified member: A fact-finding survey shall be conducted in cooperation with the head of the farming association or the head of the crop group to each category of agricultural association;

2. Documents received;

(a) To receive the document proving that he/she is a farmer, such as the farmland ledger, an application for issuance of self-certification, a copy of the livestock farming registration certificate, and documents related to agricultural shipment: Provided, That where the farming is verifiable through on-site verification, etc., the requisition for document may be omitted;

(b) Where a member is unable to obtain a farmland ledger or an application for issuance of self-certification, an individual fact-finding survey report shall be prepared;

(3) Preparation of a fact-finding survey report and approval by the president.

(4) Inspection of board of directors

1. The board of directors shall confirm and deal with withdrawal when a member becomes disqualified;

2. The board of directors shall recommend voluntary withdrawal from an unqualified member before confirmation of his withdrawal in order to reduce the side effects of withdrawal measures.

* : Matters to be considered when confirming an unqualified partner;

1) A member may temporarily suspend farming (or reduction). As such, the fact that the external shape at the time of the investigation alone is not sufficient to determine whether the member is qualified, such as confirmation of a member’s farmer’s will, and then whether the member is qualified after comprehensive deliberation of his eligibility.

2) As to the high-quality source expected to be disqualified after the fact-finding survey, notice of the result to the relevant member before the procedures for verification by the board of directors; if the member raises an objection, notice of the result to the member, accompanied by relevant documentary evidence (such as farmland ledger, application for issuance of self-certification, copy of

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

(a) Whether standing to sue or a lawsuit has interests;

According to the evidence No. 37, Eul's evidence No. 38, and Eul's evidence No. 1 to 4, the plaintiff's act was terminated on September 4, 2009 the pleadings of the third party association conducted on the date of pleading, and the adjudication date was determined on October 9, 2009, and the non-party 15 and 19 of the defendant association used raw materials for the defendant's feed and purchased goods high price of the logistics base at the plaintiff's association's association's expense. Thus, the plaintiff's act of restricting the plaintiff's election of the plaintiff's association members against the plaintiff's main purpose of offering information No. 38, which caused losses to the plaintiff's association's association's non-party 1 and the plaintiff's association's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the plaintiff's association's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's opinion and non-party 1'.

(b) Whether the period for filing a petition for revoking the election resolution is observed;

Article 33(1) and (3) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that a member may file a lawsuit claiming the cancellation or invalidation of election due to an election on the grounds that an election of executive officers violates any statute or the articles of incorporation, and Articles 376 through 381 of the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to such lawsuit. Meanwhile, a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the resolution of a general meeting of shareholders is brought within two months from the date of resolution pursuant to Article 376 of the Commercial Act, but if a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the same resolution is filed within the period of filing a lawsuit under Article 376 of the Commercial Act, if a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the resolution is filed within the same period of filing a lawsuit, it shall be deemed that the same period of filing a lawsuit has been complied with when two months have elapsed from the date of resolution for the same defect was changed to, or added to, a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the decision of invalidation was filed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da4584, Jul. 11, 2003; 2007Da4000, Sept. 29, 2001.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) although the Defendant Union conducted a fact-finding survey in accordance with the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the Articles of association of the Defendant Union, in front of the election of the head of the association, conducted the fact-finding survey, and confirmed the eligibility of the association members, thereby excluding those who are not qualified as the association members; and (b) did not go through such procedures; (c) 48 union members, including the six union members of this case, who held less than 5 mam, including the milk and dry milk, or who closed the business before the election announcement date, were registered as the elector; and (d) the above 7, 8, and 9, and 1 were registered as the elector; and (e) two members were in contravention of the principle of one union member of one household, even though they actually run the dairy farming business at the same household; (b) as a result of the instant election, the number of votes obtained by the non-qualified association members was merely a mark 2, thereby affecting the result of the election; and therefore, (e) claimed that the election of the head of the association in this case should be cancelled or void.

(2) On this issue, the Defendant Union may recognize the membership of the Plaintiff, taking into account the next dairy doctor, etc., even if the said elector temporarily failed to meet the above conditions, and therefore, in order to recognize the waiver of a dairy doctor's license, there should be a resolution of the board of directors' confirmation and qualification examination on this matter in order to recognize the forfeiture of membership and the withdrawal from the cooperative. ② Since more than two persons within the same household are eligible for membership, the said two persons such as Nonparty 8 can join the association, and thus, they cannot be deemed to lose the membership. Thus, the Defendant Union's decision on the election of this case is legitimate. ③ Furthermore, in the election of this case, the Defendant Union decided 523 electoral registers including the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is not eligible for membership, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted the cancellation or invalidation of the election of this case is inconsistent with the preceding act or contrary to the principle of good faith and thus, it cannot be permitted.

(b) Determination and determination criteria for the loss of membership;

First, the issue of qualification of a member of an agricultural cooperative is whether it is necessary to pass a resolution on the qualification of the board of directors in respect of the loss of membership and withdrawal from a cooperative. The issue of qualification of a member of an agricultural cooperative shall be deemed to have the qualification of a member at the time of joining the cooperative, and unless there are special circumstances, it shall be presumed that such qualification continues to exist (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da18385, May 13, 2005) and the articles of incorporation of the agricultural cooperative provide that the deprivation of qualification of a member before the articles of association of the association of the agricultural cooperative and the defendant cooperative should be "verification" of the board of directors. In light of the fact that the previous articles of association provides only "qualification and approval of a member" as a resolution of the board of directors, the board of directors of the agricultural cooperative should determine whether a member of the livestock cooperative is disqualified for membership of a dairy association, and if it fails to pass a resolution on the qualification of a member of the cooperative, it shall be determined that the member has no objective reason for the resolution on the qualification of a dairy cooperative.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) In accordance with the provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of association, the defendant association conducted a fact-finding survey on the non-party 1's membership from June 30, 207 to July 25, 207. According to the fact-finding survey report of the non-party 207 (hereinafter "fact-finding survey report"), the non-party 1's member's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2'.

(2) On November 23, 2007, the Defendant Cooperative decided to hold a regular board of directors to postpone the qualification examination for the non-party 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 13, 27, 28, 29, and 14 members of the instant six members were identified as non-party 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 13, 27, 28, and 29, and were excluded from the examination of qualifications for the non-party 17, 22, 23, 25, 13, 28, and 29, and the said board of directors did not investigate the next plan for raising milk for the six members of the instant six members.

(3) In addition to the above members, the non-party 3 closed a dairy farming business from August 2007 to the date of the instant election day, and it did not have one milk to re-bed dairy, and it did not have any intention to do so at the time of investigating the actual condition of members of the instant association in 2007, but after participating in the instant election and voting on December 1, 2008, the non-party 30 applied for the withdrawal of members. In addition, even though the non-party 30 participated in the instant election and did not have a milk breeding at the time of investigating the actual condition of members of the instant association, the non-party 3 made a request for a withdrawal of members on December 1, 2008. In addition, the non-party 30 made a full suspension of the milk raising of milk around December 206, 206, and raised 10 eggs and 2 2 maw, but the non-party 208, by participating in the instant election and making a full vote.

(4) Despite a considerable number of members of the Defendant Union, it is probable that a dairy farmhouse did not have a conclusive intention, such as removing milk facilities, increasing the profitability of dairy farmers due to the recent increase in production cost, such as feed cost, etc., and increasing the number of members of the instant dairy farmhouses without paying milk, or substantially closing a dairy farming business, the Defendant Union failed to take measures, such as confirming the qualification of all members of the instant dairy farmhouses before the election day of August 2007. Accordingly, the Defendant Union failed to take measures, such as confirming the qualification of members, and accordingly, if a farmer who did not raise milk more than five but remains in the list of members of the instant dairy farmhouses, and a farmer who did not have a intention of dairy farmers participated in the instant election and cast a vote is registered in the electoral register, and there is a high probability that there was a certain degree of degree other than Nonparty 33, 30, and 34.

(5) The above non-party 7 and the non-party 8 resided in the same place as a father-child relationship and raised milk with the same stable and limited payment performance in the name of the non-party 8. The non-party 9 and the non-party 1 were raising milk milk using the same stable and paid milk in the name of the non-party 9, while operating the stock farm called dynasium, which was possessed by the husband and wife. The non-party 1 did not pay milk in the name of the non-party 1.

(6) Article 10(2) of the previous Articles of Incorporation (amended by July 1, 200) of the Defendant Union (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1850, Jul. 1, 200) limits the membership of two members under the principle of one member of the household, by providing that “where two or more members of the same household fall under any of the following subparagraphs and fall under one of the following subparagraphs, two members may be employed.”

(7) Meanwhile, despite the implementation of the Guidelines for the Maintenance of Unqualified Cooperative Members in 2007, the Fisheries Cooperatives did not properly improve the unqualified cooperative members in the Agricultural and Fisheries Cooperatives by adopting the reorganization of unqualified cooperative members and encouraging it on March 24, 2009, on the grounds that, in the event of an insolvent cooperative where it is impossible to refund its contribution is passive and neglected to maintain the unqualified cooperative members, such as the controversy over the legality of election following the participation of qualified cooperative members in the election of executive officers, and civil petitions have occurred after the election, such as controversy over the legality of election following the participation of qualified cooperative members in the election of executive officers, and civil petitions have been filed due to the reduction of the benefits and opportunity of qualified cooperative members.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 3-1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 15, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 20-1 through 6, evidence No. 36, evidence No. 5-4, evidence No. 17, evidence No. 20-1, evidence No. 20-1, and evidence No. 56, 6, 117, 132, 170, 198, 202, 235, 236, 239, 269, 277, 329, Eul’s testimony No. 236, 87, 135, 140, 140, Gap’s testimony No. 15-1, 36, 36, 239, 269, 50, 57, 137, 140, 15, 31-14, 17

[Evidences, etc.] Nos. 28 through 33, Eul Nos. 35 and 36, each entry of Nos. 1, 2, and 25 of Evidence Nos. 15 and 16, shall not interfere with the above recognition, unless it is believed that each entry of Evidence Nos. 15 and 16, and No. 25, is false.

D. Whether there are grounds for violation of the statutes and the articles of incorporation of the instant election

According to the above facts, at least 6 members of the association at the time of the investigation into actual conditions of the association in 2007 did not meet the requirements for raising milk, and they did not actively indicate the intention of dairy farmers to the defendant association, and thereafter they did not raise more than 5 milk to the election day of this case. Thus, at least 6 members of the association of this case can be seen as having no intention of dairy farmers objectively and objectively at the time of the election day of this case. Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of the above law and the purport of the amendment of the articles of association of the association of the defendant association, in order for more than 2 members of the same household to maintain the membership of the association, each of the above 7 and the non-party 8, 9, and 1 of the non-party 1 were disqualified as members of the association of this case as of the election day of this case. Thus, the election of this case violated the provisions of the above law and the provisions of the articles of association of the association of the defendant association.

E. Whether the electoral register cannot be contested after the electoral register becomes final and conclusive

According to the provisions of the articles of incorporation of the defendant association, the elector means a person who has a voting right and is listed on the electoral register, and only those who have joined the electoral register no later than 180 days before the expiration date of the officer’s election period, and the electoral register was prepared based on the electoral register as of the above date, and even after the above date, those who are not members of the electoral register cannot vote on the election day. The purport of the above provisions is that the election commission grants only those who are listed on the electoral register in specific election procedures, and even if they are listed on the electoral register, those who have no voting right can vote on the election day. Therefore, even if a member loses his membership, if they are listed on the electoral register and their decision on the election of this case becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff cannot assert that there was a violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation. Further, even if the plaintiff did not raise any objection against this, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff did not have the voting right at the time of the election of this case.

F. Sub-committee

Ultimately, considering that 6 or more partners who lose their membership in the election of this case participated in the election of this case and cast a vote, it shall be deemed invalid voting, and that the difference between the plaintiff and the non-party 10 votes is merely 2 votes, the resolution of selecting the president of the association of this case, i.e., there are reasons in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of association, and the fairness, which is the basic ideology of the election, has been considerably infringed and thereby has affected the result of the election. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the decision of winning the president

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the election of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and it is decided as per Disposition to cancel the election of the non-party 10 according to the election of this case.

Judges Cho Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)