The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 16 of the former Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (amended by Act No. 12961, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “former Act on Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises”) provides that farmers, etc. who intend to enhance productivity through collaborative agricultural management, and jointly carry, distribute, process, export, etc. agricultural products may establish an agricultural partnership with five or more members. In paragraphs (3) and (7) of the same Article, the agricultural partnership shall be a juristic person, and the provisions concerning partnership in the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the agricultural partnership except as otherwise provided for in the above Act.

In addition, this provision applies to agricultural partnership established prior to the enactment of the above Act pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the former Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (amended by Act No. 9620 of April 1, 2009).

With respect to a matter in which the interests of an agricultural partnership corporation and its representative director conflict with each other, the provisions concerning partnership in the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

According to Article 709 of the Civil Code, when the executive partner has determined or appointed the executive partner under the partnership agreement, it is presumed that the executive partner has the power to exercise all acts on behalf of the partnership to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of the partnership.

In addition, Article 124 of the Civil Code provides that an agent shall not act on behalf of the principal without the principal's consent. In addition, the above provision applies even when there is a conflict of interest between the principal and the agent.

In light of these provisions, the representative director has no power of representation on matters where the interests of the farming association corporation and its representative director conflict with each other.

Nevertheless, when the representative director acts as an agent for an agricultural partnership in violation of Article 124 of the Civil Code, such act is against the agricultural partnership as an act of unauthorized representation.