Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a DNA association established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act with the aim of enhancing the agricultural productivity of its members, promoting the expansion of markets for agricultural products produced by its members and the activation of distribution sources, and providing them with alcohol, funds, materials, information, etc. required by its members.

B. On November 28, 2019, the Defendant held an election for the appointment of non-permanent directors ( female directors) (hereinafter “instant election”), and the Plaintiff and non-party C left the election as a candidate, and C was elected as a result of voting.

(c) C’s spouse E is the president of the F Association established in accordance with the F Association Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 52(4) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that “A person who operates or is engaged in a business in substantial competition with the business of a local union shall not become an executive officer or employee of the local agricultural cooperative, or a representative of the local cooperative.” However, a person who is not entitled to become an executive of the Defendant under the above provision shall not only operate a business in a competitive relationship with the local union himself/herself, but also include the case where a family member living together with whom he/she is entitled to exercise his/her influence runs a business in a competitive relationship with the local union. As long as the spouse of C elected in the instant election is the head of the central cooperative, and is a person who actually runs a business in a competitive relationship with the Defendant,

Therefore, it is invalid that the defendant decided C in the election of this case as a winner.

B. Article 52(4) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act prohibits a person who runs a business in substantial competition with the business of a local union from appointing or appointing an officer or employee of the local union.