[1] The method of distributing compensation due to the termination of fishing right of a fishing village fraternity and the method of remedying the rights of a member of the fraternity

[2] Whether there is a legal interest in dispute over the validity of a resolution by a member of a fishing village fraternity, although the fishing village fraternity was a member at the time of acquiring the compensation but at the time of resolution for distribution of the compensation (negative)

[1] Compensation for the extinction of a fishery right owned by an unincorporated association of a fishing village fraternity belongs to the collective ownership of the fishing village fraternity, and the method of distribution belongs to the collective ownership of the fishing village fraternity, and if so stipulated in the articles of incorporation, it can be distributed according to the resolution of the general meeting, and the members of the fraternity are not allowed to make a claim for compensation without such resolution. However, each member who has an objection to the resolution may be relieved of his right by demanding the absence or invalidation of the resolution in a case where there is a defect in the convening or resolution procedure of the general meeting or where the contents of the resolution are considerably unfair in light of the degree of loss in light of the overall circumstances, such as the fishery dependence of each member of

[2] The members of a fishing village fraternity, an unincorporated association, do not have a specific share in the property jointly owned, but is merely involved in the management and disposal of the property jointly owned in the position of members of the association, and if they lose their status, they cannot claim any right to the property jointly owned. Thus, even if they lose their status as members of the fishing village fraternity at the time of the resolution on distribution, if they lose their status as members of the fishing village fraternity at the time of the resolution on distribution, they shall be deemed to have no legal interest in dispute over the validity of the resolution.

[1] Articles 275 and 276(1) of the Civil Act, Article 15(4) of the Fisheries Act / [2] Articles 276(1) and 277 of the Civil Act, Article 15(4) of the Fisheries Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da57159 delivered on December 10, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 302) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da31020 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3233), Supreme Court Decision 97Da21277 delivered on October 14, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 3458), Supreme Court Decision 97Da27619 delivered on October 28, 199 (Gong197Ha, 3629), Supreme Court Decision 98Da46167 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1750)

Plaintiff 1 and eight others (Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Bona Fisheries Cooperatives, the Academic Fishing Village Federation and one other (Attorney Lee Hong-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Na7828 delivered on November 24, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff 1's assertion that the plaintiff 1 et al., who was the member of the fishing village fraternity, was the leader of the above non-party due to the death of the deceased non-party who was the member of the fishing village fraternity, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the court below alone is insufficient to recognize the non-party's status, and there is no error in violation of the legal principles of Article 187 of the Civil Procedure

In addition, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff 9 was not a member of the fraternity at the time of the resolution on distribution of the case, but its purport is that the plaintiff did not acquire the status of the plaintiff as a member of the fishing village fraternity from the beginning, and in light of the records, such recognition by the court below is acceptable. The ground for appeal on this part is based on the premise that the above plaintiff had the status as a member of the fraternity, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

Compensation for the extinction of a fishery right owned by a fishing village fraternity which is not a non-corporate association is jointly owned by the fishing village fraternity, and its method of distribution belongs to the collective ownership of the fishing village fraternity, and if so determined in the articles of incorporation, it shall not be permitted that members of the fishing village fraternity make a claim for compensation without such a resolution. However, each member who has an objection to the resolution for distribution shall not be held jointly owned by the fishing village fraternity in accordance with the procedures for convening a general meeting or resolution, or in light of the degree of losses in light of the overall circumstances, such as the dependence on fisheries of each member or the destroyed fishery facilities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31020, Aug. 22, 1995; 97Da21277, Oct. 14, 1997; 97Da27619, Oct. 28, 197; 97Da27619, Oct. 28, 1997).

On the contrary, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the member at the time of collective ownership of property owned by the fishing village fraternity under the premise that the ownership of the property owned by the members of the fishing village fraternity is recognized even to the members of the fishing village fraternity, as in the case of the members of the district fisheries cooperative that is a juristic person under the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, should be distributed the compensation even if they are not the members at the time of the resolution of distribution, and that the previous members of the fishing village fraternity who denied such a resolution shall also have

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)