Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant submitted by the plaintiff as of February 14, 1970 to the president of the plaintiff, who ordered correction until February 28, 1970, because there are many deficiencies such as the purport and reason of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not correct it. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff was deemed to have withdrawn pursuant to Article 3 (4) of the plaintiff law.

However, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Gap evidence Nos. 12-1 and 12-2, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit on February 13, 1970 and recognize the fact that the plaintiff was adjudicated as of May 12, 197, and therefore the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

The following arguments are examined.

The fact that the Defendant applied Article 172 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act to the Plaintiff by applying Article 172 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act to the following reasons: (a) the Defendant, as a mobile agricultural cooperative with the aim of promoting agricultural productivity due to lack of association members and the loss of farmland caused by urbanization for a multi-year period; and (b) the fact that the Defendant ordered dissolution as of February 3, 1970 to the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.

However, Article 172 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that "the competent Minister may dissolve a cooperative after hearing the opinion of the National Agricultural Cooperative Chairperson if the cooperative falls under any of the following subparagraphs." If the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City intends to dissolve the cooperative pursuant to the above provision and Article 164 (3) of the same Act and Article 10 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, he shall hear the opinion of the National Agricultural Cooperative Chairperson pursuant to the above Article 172. The defendant's office system requires the appointment of the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Agricultural Cooperative Chairperson with the approval of the defendant. The defendant's office system provides that the appointment of the head of the above agricultural cooperative shall be made by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Agricultural Cooperative; the right to dissolution of the agricultural cooperative is well known to the defendant, and in fact, the decision of abolition of the agricultural cooperative shall also be made by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Agricultural Cooperative Chairperson with the opinion of the Chairperson of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Chairperson without hearing the above opinion, and the defendant's opinion cannot be accepted as a ground for the above opinion.

In addition, the defendant argued that the above National Federation Chairperson's opinion was presented about the dissolution of the plaintiff union again on December 12, 1970, but the legality of the administrative disposition should be determined at the time of the disposition. Therefore, the above illegal disposition cannot be legitimate since he heard his opinion after the disposition in this case.

Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful since it did not hear the opinion of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation Chairperson as stipulated in Article 172 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and it is not unlawful to determine the remainder of the disposition. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant

Judges Sick-su (Presiding Judge)