[1] The case holding that even if defamation against an executive officer of an organization, if the contents of defamation are related to the executive officer's business and are sufficient to undermine the social evaluation of the organization, the reputation and credit of the organization was also damaged

[2] The case holding that even if a member of a fishing village fraternity commits an act that constitutes the reason for expulsion under the articles of association, expulsion of such member shall be recognized only as the final means where it is difficult to achieve the purpose of the fishing village fraternity due to such act or where it is inevitable for common interest

[1] The case holding that even if defamation against an executive officer of an organization, if the contents of defamation are related to the executive officer's business and are sufficient to undermine the social evaluation of the organization, the reputation and credit of the organization has also been damaged

[2] The case holding that expulsion is limited to a final method where it becomes difficult to achieve the purpose of fishing village fraternity or it is inevitable for the sake of common interest, in light of all the circumstances such as the fact that a member of fishing village fraternity committed an act falling under the grounds for expulsion under the articles of association and the method of sanctions other than the resolution of expulsion is not provided, even if the expulsion is not provided, it shall be limited to the case where the above act makes it difficult to achieve the purpose of fishing village fraternity

[1] Article 307 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 16-2 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, Article 4 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, and Article 9 (1) subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da21750 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1635)

Water Pauri Fishing Village (Law Firm Rate, Law Office, Attorneys Transferred-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Aju, Attorneys Yu-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2003Na858 delivered on December 11, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

1. The judgment of the court below

Based on the facts without dispute and evidence, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s act of restricting the Plaintiff’s eligibility to use the instant active fishing ground to its members at the general meeting of the Plaintiff’s 199, and that Defendant 1 also obtained the Plaintiff’s right to use the instant store and operated it together with Defendant 2, who is the wife of the instant case. Article 22(1)3 of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides that the Plaintiff’s act of causing damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation or credit by intention or gross negligence may be expelled as a resolution of the general meeting. However, even if the Plaintiff’s officer did not receive any alcohol or money from his active fishing village suppliers, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff’s act of causing damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation and credit for the purpose of using the instant fishing village fraternity was not subject to the Plaintiff’s 10th anniversary of the fact that the Plaintiff’s act of causing damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation and credit of the Plaintiff’s 20th general meeting.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below that Defendant 1 damaged the reputation of the officers of the Plaintiff by pointing out false facts about the officers of the Plaintiff three times as above is justified. Although the false facts alleged by Defendant 1 are related to the officers of the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s officers received money or other valuables from the active supplier’s operators in relation to the Plaintiff’s work, which is sufficient to undermine the social evaluation of the Plaintiff’s work process, and thus, it is sufficient to deem that the Plaintiff’s reputation or credit was damaged. Furthermore, the judgment of the court below that the resolution of expulsion of this case is valid on the premise that the Plaintiff’s reputation or credit was significantly damaged.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff is established for the purpose of promoting joint business to improve the productivity of members of fishing village fraternity, conducting joint business to improve their living conditions, and enhancing their economic and social status pursuant to Article 16-2 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act. The plaintiff is a fishing village fraternity formed with members of the Gangwon-do Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries for a certain fishery permit. The Yangyang-gun or the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries is granted a right to use and benefit from the fish farm of this case without compensation from Gangwon-do. The members are again maintaining their livelihood with the plaintiff's fishery right or right to use a store within the fish farm, and the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff opens a way to join as members of the fishing village fraternity again after the lapse of six months after the resolution of expulsion. However, if the plaintiff's membership is clearly damaged by the plaintiff's reputation or credit of the plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's act of causing harm to the plaintiff's reputation or credit has been seriously restricted by the plaintiff's intention or gross negligence.

However, according to the records, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s above defamation act alone makes it difficult to achieve the plaintiff’s objective or it is inevitable to make a expulsion for the sake of common interest, and it is not specified that Defendant 1 was involved in the Plaintiff’s suspicion of corruption during the period of four years, and it does not appear that the Plaintiff was an independent ground for expulsion, and even if Defendant 1 did not cause the Plaintiff’s mistake during the period of four years, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s expulsion resolution was inevitable as a final means on the ground that it added the circumstance that Defendant 1 did not cause the Plaintiff’s mistake.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the plaintiff's resolution of expulsion of this case against defendant 1 is valid only for the reasons stated in its reasoning, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the expulsion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)