In case where a land improvement cooperative is divided in the course of a lawsuit and a new land improvement cooperative is established, the new land improvement cooperative, after investigating the interest points ex officio, shall proceed with the lawsuit by treating the newly established land improvement cooperative as the litigation receiver

In case where a land improvement cooperative is divided in the course of a lawsuit and a new land improvement cooperative is established, the court shall, ex officio, examine this point and proceed with the litigation procedures by treating the newly established land improvement cooperative as a litigation receiver.

Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 221 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 77 of the Land Improvement Business Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da8 delivered on April 11, 1963 delivered on January 11, 1962

continental industry

Dacheon Land Improvement Cooperatives

Daegu High Court Decision 64Na432 delivered on April 28, 1967

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

In a case where a corporation’s rights and duties are succeeded to a newly established corporation under the provisions of Acts, the legal status of the newly established corporation is also succeeded to the legal status of the newly established corporation without any special grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da8, Apr. 11, 1963). The legality of a request for continuation is a court’s ex officio examination where it is recognized that the takeover is not well-grounded as a result of an investigation, but it is not necessary to hold a separate judgment, but it is clear in light of the provisions of Article 221(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 4294Hun-Ba58, Jan. 11, 1962). However, according to the judgment of the court below, the court below dismissed the Plaintiff’s request against the Intervenor as a participant who acquired the above land association, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Intervenor on the ground that part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the intervenor, and it can be recognized that the intervenor’s obligation is separated as a comprehensive succession of the rights and duties of the intervenor.

However, according to the records (900 parties' application form, 915, 917, 922, 1.2.3, etc. of 922, the above-mentioned Land Improvement Cooperative was originally incorporated on December 13, 1961 after the incorporation of 8 repair cooperatives, such as the Anncheon Land Improvement Cooperative, which was established on May 5, 196, and it is obvious that a small land Improvement Cooperative was newly established as a small land Improvement Cooperative due to the division of the above land and its registration was completed on June 4, 1966, and Article 6 of the Land Improvement Project Act, while a corporation is a corporation, and a cooperative established by division pursuant to Article 77 of the same Act succeeds to all or part of the rights and obligations of a cooperative that was extinguished due to the division, and the head of a cooperative subject to division shall continue to exist in the case of subparagraph 1(d) of the same Article within one month from the date of the public announcement of the division.

(E) The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry provides that a plan for succession to rights and duties shall be based on the previous written statement of transfer of duties by cooperative at the time of association annexation, but the above sub-paragraph 3 shall be succeeded to the rights and duties according to the above division as of May 23, 1966, and the litigation case shall also be transferred to the disposal key in the small-scale land improvement cooperative. This case shall be raised on September 23, 1963 and the decision of the court of first instance was rendered on September 22, 1964 (No. 903 of the record) and the decision of the court below which ordered the change of the party's legal representative from June 24, 1966 (No. 906 of the record) to the small-scale land improvement cooperative as of July 14, 1966 shall be reversed, and it is evident that the plaintiff, as the above 24th court below did not agree to the above legal principles regarding the improvement of land rights and duties of the 196th court.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court