Whether the acquisition and operation of a wedding hall for local agricultural cooperatives located in a large city can be viewed as their unique duties (negative)

Article 5 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that a cooperative shall not engage in profit-making or speculation. The purpose of this prohibition is to prohibit a cooperative from carrying on its own profit-making business for its own, and it is to prohibit a cooperative from carrying on its own profit-making business for its members. Thus, a cooperative's own profit-making business regardless of its members is in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes and it is not a violation of the cooperative's own profit-making business for its own purpose. The acquisition of real estate for this purpose is not subject to tax exemption under Article 290 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act. Since there is no restriction on the subject of use of the wedding hall on the third floor among the newly constructed buildings by a local agricultural cooperative, the cooperative's members using the wedding hall from March 31, 195 to March 31, 196 who actually started operating the wedding hall are not members of the cooperative's own profit-making business for its own purpose and for its own profit-making business regardless of its members' own use fees.

Article 5 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and Article 290 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

dong Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Kim Ba-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The head of Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City

Busan High Court Decision 96Gu10287 delivered on April 30, 1997

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

Article 5(2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that a cooperative shall not engage in profit-making or speculation. The prohibition of profit-making business refers to a business for profit-making purposes of a cooperative itself, which prohibits a member of the cooperative from running a profit-making business for the cooperative, or from running a business unrelated to the cooperative (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10630, May 14, 1993).

Therefore, the management of a cooperative's own profit-making business regardless of its members is in violation of the above laws and regulations and cannot be a business for its own purpose, and the acquisition of real estate for this purpose cannot be subject to tax exemption under Article 290 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act.

Even based on the facts established by the court below, there is no restriction on the subject of the use of the wedding hall on the third floor above the ground among the buildings of this case newly constructed by the plaintiff which is a local agricultural cooperative, and the members using the wedding hall from March 31, 1995 to March 31, 1996, which actually commenced the operation of the wedding hall, are limited to four (2.3%) among the total users, and the user fee and the fee for the use of the wedding hall reach 75% of the general wedding hall usage fee in the vicinity. If the factual relations are different, it is reasonable to view that the operation of the wedding hall of this case is to promote the profit of the cooperative itself as a business unrelated to the members (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14845, Feb. 28, 1997). It cannot be viewed as a welfare and welfare business of the union members, one of its own business purposes.

In addition, the usage fee is limited to the extent of collecting the actual expenses from the use of the facility, and the revenue alone does not extend to the maintenance expenses of the wedding facility.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the exemption of taxation by public corporations under the Local Tax Act, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the contrary, that the Plaintiff’s business of operating the wedding hall of this case was not a business for the purpose of profit-making by the association itself, but a

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)