The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the resolution of the general meeting is valid without neglecting the deliberation on the head of the fraternity, the legality of the convening procedure, etc. even though the number of members of the fishing village fraternity is 20 or more, in light of the law, the articles of incorporation, and the statement of pleading, etc.

According to Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, since at least 20 members of a fisheries cooperative in each district residing in the district within the zone become promoters and establish a preparatory committee for establishment with the approval of the head of Si/Gun after the inaugural general meeting, and Article 22 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulates that the time when the number of members of a fishing village fraternity is less than 20 and the time when the number of members of a fishing village fraternity becomes less than 20 and the articles of association of the defendant fishing village fraternity stipulate that the time when the number of members of a fishing village fraternity becomes less than 20 and the time when the number of members of a fishing village fraternity becomes less than 20 under Article 71 (1) 4 can be seen as one of the grounds for dissolution, and the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, even if the above number of members of a fishing village fraternity remains in force at least 20, in the absence of special circumstances.

Articles 183, 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 4(1) and 22(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seocho2 District Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 20

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Na2788 delivered on June 4, 1991

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. Defendant fishing village fraternity is presumed to be a non-corporate body organized by 17 members including the Plaintiff. Defendant fishing village fraternity continues to exist even after the fishery right of this case was extinguished, and Defendant fishing village fraternity held a general meeting on May 3, 198 and decided to distribute the instant compensation received by Defendant fishing village fraternity from the Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation to the members of the fraternity, taking into account the number of interests by neglecting to hold a general meeting on May 3, 198. Defendant fishing village fraternity decided to distribute KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff as a cause of a cause of a cause of neglect, and the Plaintiff who was present at the general meeting at that time consented thereto.

B. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the convening procedure of the above general meeting is unlawful, the above general meeting is invalid, and the defendant fishing village fraternity notified all members of the meeting by telephone and village broadcasting prior to the holding of the general meeting on May 3, 1988, and agreed that the plaintiff shall attend the above general meeting and follow the above resolution. Further, the defendant fishing village fraternity may hold a general meeting on December 26, 1990 through lawful convocation procedure, and recognize the fact that the above general meeting resolution was passed again on May 3, 1988. Thus, even if there was a defect in the convening procedure of the general meeting on May 3, 1988, the plaintiff was present at the general meeting and taken over the resolution, and as long as the above resolution was ratified lawfully on December 26, 1990 again at the general meeting, the above general meeting's resolution is deemed to be valid.

2. In order to determine whether the above resolution of the general meeting is valid, it is necessary to first determine whether there are several members of the fishing village fraternity or not.

However, according to Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, a fishing village fraternity is established by 20 or more members of a fisheries cooperative in each district residing in the district within the district as promoters and by preparing its articles of association and obtaining approval from the head of Si/Gun after resolution at the inaugural general meeting. Article 22 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the case where the number of members of a fishing village fraternity is less than 20 and the case where the number of members of a fishing village fraternity is less than 20, the reason for dissolution of the fishing village fraternity is specified as one of the reasons for dissolution. Meanwhile, according to the first 12 statement of the first 12 pleadings, unless there are special circumstances, the court below's decision that the number of members of a fishing village fraternity is more than 20, including the plaintiff is legitimate after the resolution of the general meeting of the members of the fishing village fraternity is examined.

The court below is not clear whether some of 22 members of the original 22 members of the fishing village fraternity have withdrawn or naturally withdrawn, and in such case, Article 21 of the articles of incorporation (Evidence No. 4) of the fishing village fraternity (Evidence No. 4) of the defendant has a provision concerning withdrawal, and therefore, it should be examined whether such withdrawal or natural withdrawal had been made in light of this.

3. In addition, according to the general meeting minutes (No. 1-1) of the defendant fishing village fraternity as of May 3, 198, the plaintiff did not attend the general meeting, and the defendant fishing village fraternity's articles of incorporation (No. 4) Article 32 (1) of the fishery village fraternity's articles of incorporation (Evidence No. 4) provides that a notice stating the date, time, place, agenda, session, etc. of the general meeting shall be sent to the members of the fraternity and a notice stating the date, time, agenda, session, etc. shall be given to the members of the fraternity by no later than 10 days prior to the date of the general meeting, and there is no evidence suggesting that the notice of convening the general meeting against the plaintiff and the non-party on December 26, 1990 may be viewed as legitimate notice because it is not a notice to the members of the fraternity, but a notice of convening the general meeting as of December

4. If so, the court below did not err in the incomplete hearing or incomplete reasoning as seen above, and it affected the judgment, which points out this issue is with merit.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)