Although the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's filing of the appeal in this case was illegal because it violated the agreement on the grounds that it was difficult to see that there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant not to file an appeal, and there was no other evidence to support it. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiffs is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

If there is a defect in the resolution of the general meeting of a fishing village fraternity, a member of the fraternity may bring a lawsuit claiming the validity of the resolution of the general meeting to the court. Even if the articles of association of the defendant fishing village fraternity stipulate the procedure for filing a claim for the revocation of the resolution to the head of the association, such as the theory of lawsuit, the procedure for filing a claim for revocation of the resolution to the head of the association before the filing of the lawsuit

(2) On the second ground for appeal

(A) The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) eight persons, including Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 2, and 2, and 8 of the first instance court co-Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 4 (hereinafter referred to as eight claimants), entered into a contract on the exercise of fishery right of the instant case jointly owned by the Defendant with the Defendant who is a fishing village fraternity; (b) the fact that eight claimants became the Defendant’s members pursuant to the above exercise contract and run fishing ground by the development project of the military industrial base of the Korea Land Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Corporation”); and (c) the fact that the instant fishery right becomes extinguished due to the development project of the military industrial base of the said Korea Land Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Corporation”) while managing the fishing ground, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s claim for the distribution of compensation to the Defendant as the Defendant’s members was more likely to exercise the above fishery right; and (d) the Defendant’s claim for the distribution of compensation to the Defendant’s members; and therefore, (e) determined that the distribution resolution of the Defendant’s association may not exercise any other reasonable resolution.

(B) Article 24 (4) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) provides that "the fishery right enjoyed by a fishing village fraternity which is not a corporation shall be jointly owned by it." Thus, as well as the fishery right, any compensation for losses arising from the extinguishment of the fishery right shall belong to the collective ownership of the fishing village fraternity, unless there are special circumstances. The above compensation for losses under collective ownership shall be disposed by a resolution of the General Meeting of Members unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of association or other regulations (see Article 276 (1) 7 of the Civil Act), Article 10 (1) 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act and Article 33 (1) 7 of the Articles of incorporation (Evidence No. 222 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act) of the fishing village fraternity (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 199), which provides that "the acquisition of the fishery right or other property of the fishing village fraternity shall be jointly owned by it."

(C) As acknowledged by the court below, even if there is no possibility for the defendant to make a fair distribution resolution, if the resolution is unfair due to the failure of the defendant's resolution to wait for the invalidity of the distribution resolution, and even if the defendant made a resolution to dismiss the plaintiffs who are the causes of the fraternity at the general meeting of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Republic of Korea, the plaintiffs are merely able to make a claim against the defendant for the distribution of compensation for losses arising from the legitimate distribution resolution by inducing the defendant to make a legitimate distribution resolution through these measures, and as acknowledged by the court below, it is not possible to claim the distribution of compensation for the defendant immediately without the defendant's resolution of the general meeting of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Council of the Republic of Korea on the grounds that there are circumstances recognized by the court below, but the court below acknowledged the defendant's right to claim direct distribution of compensation for the defendant and calculated the reasonable amount of distribution of compensation for the defendant based on the above circumstances, it does not constitute an unlawful

(D) On the other hand, according to the records, the plaintiffs asserted that they did not act as a member of the fraternity against the defendant, but as a party to the contract to exercise the fishery right between the defendant and the defendant, they would have claimed for the allocation of compensation for losses under the contract as a party to the contract to exercise the fishery right. If there is a special agreement between the parties on the contract to exercise the fishery right in this case, if the fishery right ceases to exist during the contract period and there is a special agreement on the distribution of compensation for losses belonging to the defendant, the above 8 holders may claim for the payment of compensation for losses under the above special agreement against the defendant as a party to the contract to exercise

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)