[당선무효확인][공2001.2.15.(124),353]
Criteria for determining 'business in substantial competition' with the business of the association under Article 53 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act which prohibits employment, such as executive officers of the competition business operator.
Even if an agricultural cooperative’s purpose of business is an entity’s business, if a cooperative does not commence or commence specific preparation, such as entirely closing its business or providing its business place, that is, where there is a possibility of abstract conflict of interests, it is difficult to deem that the cooperative actually carries on or actually carries on the same kind of business as the intended business, and thus, it cannot be deemed that an executive or employee of the cooperative actually carries on the same business as the intended business, even if it is difficult to deem that the cooperative actually carries on or actually carries on the same business as the intended business.
Article 53 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 5591 of Dec. 28, 1998) (see current Article 52 (4))
Plaintiff
Suwon Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Jeong-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 2000Na 1074 delivered on August 30, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
In full view of the evidence revealed in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s association’s business activities under Article 53 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act (amended by Act No. 5591 of Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter the same shall apply) include a plan that the Defendant’s association will acquire a gas station of KRW 100 million among the Defendant’s business plan through a resolution of the board of directors and the board of representatives from 1996 to 198, but the above budget was not allocated in accordance with the calculation of detailed requirements, and that there was no specific preparation procedure for the business, such as physical color of the site of the gas station, etc. for the above three years, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s business activities cannot be seen as having any substantial effect on the Nonparty’s establishment and implementation of a polling station’s business without any specific resolution of the board of directors, such as the Plaintiff’s business operation, even if the association’s business which is the object of the association’s business, is entirely closed or its business operation could not be seen.
Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just and it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, and if the facts are true, the court below is just in holding that the non-party who is the president of the defendant's association does not operate or engage in the business in substantial competition with the business of the association which is prohibited from finding employment in Article 53 of the former Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and there is no error of misunderstanding legal principles as to the interpretation of the business in substantial competition with the business of the association
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)