Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Yang Chang-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Park Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 1, 2016

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Kadan23303 decided June 3, 2015

1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The plaintiff is responsible for total costs of litigation between the plaintiff and the defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 21,026,700 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed in entirety.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where “this Court” in Section 5 of Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be “a High Government District Court Support”. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If a partnership's obligation is a partner's obligation and the partnership's obligation is borne by an act of commercial activity for all members, the partnership's joint liability is recognized by applying Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act.

Meanwhile, since the provisions of the Civil Act apply mutatis mutandis to the agricultural partnership, the same as the non-party corporation, the Defendants, the members of the association, are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the instant goods purchased through commercial activities.

B. Determination

Article 15(2) of the Framework Act on Agriculture and Rural Community provides that “A farming association shall be a juristic person, and shall be established by registering its establishment at the seat of its principal office.” Article 15(8) provides that “Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the provisions concerning associations in the Civil Act concerning farming associations shall apply mutatis mutandis to farming associations.”

In principle, the application of the provisions on partnership to an incorporated association under the above Act shall be permitted within the extent not contrary to its nature. However, in light of the fact that the reason for deeming the obligation of an incorporated association under the Civil Act as the obligation of an incorporated association is merely merely a contract between partners under the Civil Act, but is not a subject to the ownership of rights and obligations, and thus, it is because only the association member can belong to his/her rights and obligations in legal relations surrounding an incorporated association, it is reasonable to deem that the legal principle that the obligation of an incorporated association is not applicable mutatis mutandis to the legal relations of an incorporated association that is separate from the association member, and that the obligation of an incorporated association cannot be regarded as the obligation of the association member unless there is a separate provision, such as Article 212 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, from the contrary perspective, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the performance of the obligations of the non-party legal entity is without merit, on the premise that the obligations of the farming association corporation are obligations of its members.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety because it is without merit. Since the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in its conclusion, the part against the defendants in the judgment of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety and it is so decided as per Disposition

Judge Voluntary Chief of Justice (Presiding Judge) Filing of a written complaint

1) For reference, the current Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises provides that Article 16(8) of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an agricultural partnership, but Article 17(3) of the same Act provides that “the liability of a member or an associate member of an agricultural partnership shall be limited to the amount of investment paid by the member or an associate member of an agricultural partnership.” In relation to an agricultural partnership, it is clear that the legal doctrine that “the obligation of an association is not applied mutatis mutandis.”