[1] Whether a member of a fishing village fraternity may claim the distribution of his/her share to the fishing village fraternity directly without a resolution by the general meeting of the fishing village fraternity (negative)

[2] Where a resolution by the general meeting of the fishing village fraternity on the distribution of compensation for losses is remarkably unfair, the validity of such resolution (negative)

[1] Compensation for loss of a fishing right held by a corporate fishing village fraternity may be distributed only by a resolution (or a resolution of the general meeting in lieu of a resolution of the general meeting) of the fishing village fraternity, and each member of the fishing village fraternity may not directly claim the amount of money to be distributed to him/her, even though there is no resolution of the general meeting.

[2] If the resolution of the general meeting of the fishing village fraternity concerning the distribution of compensation for loss caused by the loss of fishery right is considerably unfair in light of the degree of loss in light of the contents of the fishery right exercised by each member of the fishing village fraternity, dependence on fishery, and circumstances of fishery equipment owned by the members of the fishing village fraternity or damaged fishery facilities, such resolution shall be invalidated

[1] Articles 275 and 276 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 18 of the Fisheries Act / [2] Articles 275 and 276 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 18 of the Fisheries Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da534 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2392), Supreme Court Decision 94Da31020 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3233), Supreme Court Decision 95Da57159 delivered on December 10, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 302)

Creditors

E. Fishing village fraternity (Attorney Bae Ki-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land Development Corporation

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Na1526 delivered on April 25, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the creditor.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the second ground for appeal

Compensation for loss of a fishery right held by a fishing village fraternity may be distributed only by a resolution (or a resolution of the general meeting in lieu of a resolution of the general meeting) of the fishing village fraternity, and each member of the fishing village fraternity may not directly claim the amount of money to be distributed to him/her, even though there is no resolution of the general meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da534, Jul. 14, 1992; 94Da31020, Aug. 22, 1995). Therefore, there is no reason to challenge this.

2. On the first and third grounds for appeal

It is discussed that the resolution of the general meeting of fishing village fraternities on the distribution of compensation for loss caused by the loss of fishing right shall be null and void if it is remarkably unfair in light of the degree of loss in light of the overall circumstances of the exercise of fishing right by each member of fishing village fraternities, dependence on fishing, equipment owned by members of fishing village fraternities, facilities destroyed by fishing, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da534 and 94Da31020, supra).

However, according to the debtor's fishing ground management rules for the subsidiary-type Kim-Type fishing ground at issue in this case, since the above fishing ground can be equally exercised by all the members of the fishing village fraternity, the argument that compensation paid to the debtor due to the loss of the fishery right to the above fishing ground should be distributed only to all the members of the fishing village fraternity who actually conducted Kim-type in the above fishing ground as of the base date of compensation. Meanwhile, according to the records, the debtor's compensation to be equally distributed to the 647 members of the fishing village fraternity including the creditor is compensation for all the 22 fishing rights held by the debtor, and the creditor is not entitled to exercise the fishery right, even if he did not have the right to exercise or has the right to exercise other 21 fishing grounds than the above 1741 fishing ground, even if the debtor decided to equally distribute the compensation amount for the fishery right to all the above 22 fishing grounds to all the members of the fishing village fraternity, the resolution of the court below cannot be deemed to be remarkably unfair and invalid. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)