The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (amended by Act No. 12961, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act”).

(2) According to Article 16(1) of the Commercial Act, the provisions pertaining to a cooperative in the Civil Act concerning a cooperative shall apply mutatis mutandis to an agricultural partnership, except as otherwise provided for in the Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act, and a cooperative member under the Civil Act shall bear an individual liability on the partnership’s obligations in proportion to or equal share of shares (Articles 704 and 712 of the Civil Act). However, if an obligation of a cooperative is to be borne by an act that constitutes a commercial activity for all the union members, each union member shall be jointly and severally liable for an obligation of a cooperative pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act. In this case, inasmuch as the obligation of a cooperative to the Plaintiff of a non-party partnership was borne by an act that constitutes a commercial activity for all the union members, the Defendants, who are members of a non-party

B. Determination 1) In principle, applicable mutatis mutandis is permissible within the extent that does not go against its nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2015Ma813, Sept. 14, 2015) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2015Ma813, Sept. 14, 2015). In light of the fact that the most large ground for deeming a union’s obligation as a partner’s obligation under the Civil Act is merely a contract between the union members, but is not a subject to ownership of rights and obligations, and that only the union members are subject to ownership of rights and obligations in a legal relationship surrounding the union, the legal doctrine