A. Whether a reappeal against the appellate court’s rejection of an appeal is a person entitled to make a reappeal. Whether an agricultural cooperative’s filing of a report on auction of real estate with intent to make a profit or speculation, or to take it as its fundamental property is excessively null and void (negative)

(c) Whether an agricultural cooperative shall obtain approval under Article 58 (1) 13 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act in acquiring auction real estate (negative)

(a) As to the decision to dismiss an appeal by the appellate court, only the appellant who has received such decision may make a reappeal, and even if other persons have an interest in the decision, the reappeal shall not be made;

B. Even if an agricultural cooperative reported the auction of the auction real estate with the intention to make profit or speculation or to take it as its basic property, it cannot be viewed as a mandatory law under Article 5(2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act that prohibits profit or speculation, and Article 45(4) of the same Act that provides that the acquisition and disposition of the basic property shall be subject to resolution by the board of directors. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a mandatory law.

C. According to Articles 3, 14, 58, and 173 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, an agricultural cooperative, which is a juristic person, with the aim of promoting the promotion of agricultural productivity and the enhancement of economic and social status of its members, can carry out the projects stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 58 (1) of the same Act, such as purchase business, sales business, and use business, in order to achieve its objective. Thus, the real estate for business purposes can be acquired as a matter of course to carry out the above projects. In addition, even if an executive of the association carries out a business other than those stipulated in the same Act, it is not effective for the association and is subject to criminal punishment when it uses funds for purposes other than its business purposes, the report of auction of real estate at auction is ultimately deemed to be aimed at carrying out the projects stipulated in the same Act. Therefore, the acquisition of real estate for auction by the above association does not require approval from the competent Minister under Article 58 (1) 13 of the same Act

(a) Article 412(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 626(b) of the same Act; Articles 5(2) and 45(4) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act; Article 58(1) of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 85Ma123 Dated Apr. 2, 1985 (Gong1985,91) Dated June 28, 1956, No. 63Ma64 Dated Sep. 16, 1964>

Appellant 1 et al.

Suwon District Court Order 91Ra60 Dated December 31, 1991

The reappeal 2's reappeal is dismissed.

The re-appellant 1's reappeal is dismissed.

1. As to the reappeal 2's reappeals

ex officio, the order of the court below that 2 re-appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of permission of real estate auction. The decision of the court below that dismissed 1 re-appellant's appeal against the decision of permission of real estate auction without merit. The appellant who received the decision of dismissal by the court of appeal is entitled to re-appeal against the decision of dismissal by the court of appeal, and the other person is not allowed to re-appeal even though he has an interest in the decision (see Supreme Court Order 63Ma64 delivered on September 16, 1964; Supreme Court Order 85Ma123 delivered on April 2, 1985).

Therefore, the reappeal 2's reappeal is unlawful as it was filed by a person without the right to re-appeal.

2. As to the reappeal 1's reappeals

With respect to No. 1:

In light of the records, there is no evidence suggesting that the circumstances leading up to the filing of a report on the auction of the real estate in this case for the purpose of profit-making or speculation by the cooperative itself or for the purpose of using it as its fundamental property. For this purpose, even though Article 5 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and Article 45 (4) of the same Act stipulating that the acquisition and disposition of basic property for profit-making or speculation shall not be regarded as the mandatory provisions of this society's resolution, it cannot be deemed as null and void. Further, according to Articles 3, 14, 58, and 173 of the same Act, an agricultural cooperative (the king agricultural cooperative's certified copy of the register of cooperatives established in Chapter 758 of the records) which is a corporation for the purpose of promoting the promotion of agricultural productivity of its members, economic status improvement, or the acquisition and disposition of real estate in this case cannot be seen as having been subject to criminal punishment other than those of the above Article 5 (1) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above real estate for business purposes should be subject to such an auction.

In the end, there is no error of law as pointed out in the auction court's permission for the auction of this case against the above union. The argument is without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the appraisal report on the auction real estate of this case (record 520 and 539) and the king market attached thereto, the auction real estate of this case is located in the area designated as a general commercial area under urban planning (record 523) but it can be seen that the above appraisal report is a general residential area. However, in light of the results of inquiry by the head of the office of ○○○ appraiser (record 791) of the court below and the appraisal report submitted by the appraiser to the auction court, the urban planning confirmation is attached as reference material, the "general residential area" of the above appraisal report appears to be a clerical error in the "general commercial area", and even when examining the calculation basis for the appraisal price of the auction real estate of this case according to the above appraisal report, the appraiser can not be found to have erred by comparing the auction real estate of this case with the total appraisal price of the real estate of this case, on the premise that the auction real estate of this case is a comprehensive market site and building in the commercial area.

The Supreme Court precedents cited by the Re-Appellants are not appropriate, unlike this case.

The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal 2's reappeal is dismissed, and the reappeal 1's reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)