A. The meaning of “for-profit or speculation purposes” under Article 5(2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

(b) Whether an agricultural cooperative is able to operate a gas station, etc. to supply petroleum to its members (affirmative with qualification)

(c) The case affirming the decision of the court below that estimated the ratio of supply of oil for domestic use owned by an agricultural cooperative since there is no real data on the ratio of supply between the association members and non-members in judging whether the agricultural cooperative's profit from the management of oil for domestic use;

A. For the purpose of Article 5(2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the term "business for profit or speculation" means business for the profit of the cooperative itself or for the purpose of distributing surplus earnings, and it is interpreted as prohibiting a member of the cooperative from running a business for profit or for profit of the cooperative, which is not related to the cooperative's own business.

(b) The management of a general retail store or a gas station in order to supply petroleum products necessary for the farming and living of its members to its members is not for profit-making purposes by the union itself, and it is allowed to operate such business if permitted under the Petroleum Business Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In such a case, the gas station business is a business for which the union's own purpose belongs.

C. The case affirming the decision of the court below that estimated the ratio of supply ratio between the cooperative members and non-cooperative members for taxable oil in judging the profit-making by the operation of gas stations by agricultural cooperatives since there is no real data on the ratio of supply to the cooperative members and non-cooperative members for taxable oil.

A. (b) Articles 5(2) and 58(c) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act; Article 110-3(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 14, 1991)

B. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5273 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1312)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Macheon-gun

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu15586 delivered on June 3, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The purpose of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is to promote the balanced development of the national economy by promoting the promotion of agricultural productivity and the improvement of the economic and social status of farmers through the voluntary cooperative organization of farmers (Article 1), thereby regulating the establishment purpose of an agricultural cooperative (hereinafter referred to as "cooperative"), while setting the limit on the scope of its establishment by stipulating that an agricultural cooperative shall not engage in profit-making or speculation (Article 5(2)), but Article 58 (Article 126 for special agricultural cooperatives) of the same Act lists the scope of its business for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the cooperative. Among them, the term "profit-making or speculation-making business" prohibited by the above Act refers to the business for the purpose of acquiring profits of the cooperative itself or distributing surplus earnings, and it is interpreted that the purpose of prohibiting a cooperative from carrying out its own profit-making business for its members, which is not related to the cooperative's members, and that the above Act does not allow its members to use its business for non-profit purposes, and thus, it is not sufficient to readily conclude that it conforms with the articles of association to the aforementioned Act.

Therefore, the union's management of a general retail store or a gas station in order to supply petroleum products necessary for the farming and living of union members to union members is not for profit-making purposes of the union itself (Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5273 delivered on March 10, 192), so long as the union's permission under the Petroleum Business Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is granted, the union can operate its business (Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5273 delivered on March 10, 192). In this case

The court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff supplied oil to non-members while supplying oil to non-members with the permission of gas stations, but the supply to non-members did not exceed the limit of the supply to non-members as stipulated in the articles of incorporation, and that the gas station facility of this case was used directly for its proper purpose. There is no illegality such as the issue.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The annual supply table of petroleum as adopted by the court below is justified in the calculation of the consumption ratio of non-members as it is reasonable in the calculation method by estimating the consumption of non-members' petroleum only for taxable petroleum because there is no specific sales record about the non-members and non-members with respect to the taxable petroleum at the time of the occurrence of taxation requirements. In addition, in light of the quantity of tax-free petroleum used and the ratio of the quantity of tax-free petroleum used in the records, the amount of tax-free petroleum supplied to the members of the year 1986, 1987 (No. 10-1) exceeds 30% of the total supply amount, so even if the remaining amount of tax-free petroleum used is calculated in accordance with 40% (No. 192-p. 192), which is the ratio of non-members of the plaintiff's non-members in the jurisdiction of the defendant, the portion of non-members' use is below 1/3 of the total amount of use as provided in the articles of association below 28%, and there is no reason for all arguments.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)