(영문) 대법원 2021.1.14. 선고 2020다222580 판결

1. Article 16(8) of the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act”) provides that “Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the provisions pertaining to partnerships in the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to agricultural and fisheries partnerships and fisheries partnerships.” Since the Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act does not provide for any particular provision regarding the duties of association members and the right to inspect the property of association members, the provisions pertaining to partnerships in the Civil Act

Article 710 of the Civil Code provides that "each partner may at any time inspect the affairs and status of the property of the partnership" under the title "the right to inspect the affairs and the status of the property of the partnership."

Each partner may inspect the account books and other documents and inspect the existence of the business and property of the partnership. As such, the right to inspect the account books and other documents within the extent necessary to inspect the business and the status of the property of the partnership is included. Therefore, the member of the partnership may request an inspection and copying of the account books and other documents of the partnership, barring any special circumstance.

2. The lower court cited the judgment of the first instance court, and partly accepted the claims of the Plaintiff and the designated parties seeking perusal and copying of books (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), as follows:

A. The Defendant is an incorporated farming association established for the purpose of Korea-friendly livestock farming, processing, and sales business, and the Plaintiffs are members of the Defendant. Article 710 of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to an incorporated farming association pursuant to Article 16(8) of the Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs may file a claim against the Defendant for inspection and copying of the accounting books to inspect the business affairs and property of

B. Article 30 of the Defendant’s articles of association provides that “this corporation shall keep the “tax invoice” at the office and disclose it to the union members and associate members.” The above articles of association provide the documents to be kept and disclosed by the Defendant, and the remainder of the accounting books except the tax invoice shall not be subject to the general and total prohibition of the union members’ request for inspection and copying. If the Defendant construed that only the tax invoice is required to be disclosed to the union members, the right to inspect the affairs and property of the union members is nonexistent. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs obtained unjust purposes or violated the principle of good faith.

3. Such determination by the lower court is justifiable on the basis of the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the right to claim perusal and copy of books, contrary to what is alleged

4. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, 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.