Cases not falling under the conclusion of a contract under Article 23 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act;

The guarantee that farmland improvement association will be responsible for and pay the mid-term rental fees to the lessors used in the Corporation from among the construction costs to be paid to the company which is the recipient of the Corporation for the smooth implementation of the Corporation as the owner of the reservoir construction does not fall under the so-called "Conclusion of contracts that will become the burden of the association other than the so-called budget" under subparagraph 8 of Article 23 of the Rural

Article 23 subparagraph 8 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act

Agricultural Promotion Corporation (Attorney Yeong-si, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Central Farmland Improvement Cooperatives

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na1369 delivered on November 3, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below rejected the court below's decision that the defendant's act of guaranteeing the payment of the rent of this case, which is a contract to be borne by the defendant's association in addition to the budget pursuant to Article 23 subparagraph 8 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act and Article 9 (2) of the Addenda of the same Act, was null and void because the defendant's act of guaranteeing the payment of rent of this case, which is a contract to be borne by the defendant's union members or the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, was conducted by the general meeting of the defendant's union members or approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. The defendant's act of guaranteeing the payment of rent of this case, which is a contract to be borne by the defendant's association, is judged null and void, and the above non-party company's construction owner is the contractor of the funeral zone construction as the contractor of the above company used it for the construction work, and eventually the defendant's association is a corporation established and operated under the same Act, and there is no evidence to believe that the defendant's act of guaranteeing the witness of this case belongs to the contract of the defendant association.

However, according to the above evidence Nos. 1-3 Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 4-6, and Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, the defendant's purpose is to install, maintain and manage farmland improvement facilities and to implement the rearrangement project and farming improvement, etc. as one of its target projects, and the mid-term season of this case leased by the above non-party company from the plaintiff was for use in the above cemetery reservoir works, and the defendant's owner of the above construction works guaranteed the above rent payment obligation to the plaintiff's above mid-term return request, as well as the defendant's request for the above mid-term payment of the construction cost to the above plaintiff's construction work site, and the defendant's testimony of the above construction cost of the above cemetery's construction project was not sufficient to allow the above construction cost to be paid to the non-party Nos. 2, the above contractor's testimony among the above construction cost of the above cemetery's construction project to be paid to the non-party Nos. 1-2, the above contractor's testimony of the above construction cost of the above project.

Therefore, this guarantee cannot be viewed as falling under "a conclusion of a contract which will be borne by a cooperative other than the so-called "budget" under Article 23 subparagraph 8 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, which provides that the defendant's act of guarantee of this case shall not be deemed as falling under "a conclusion of a contract which requires the resolution of the general meeting of the defendant union members or the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry". Thus, although the defendant's act of guarantee of this case is valid even without the resolution of the general meeting of the defendant union members or the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, even if the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, the court below rejected the above non-party 3's above non-party 2's rejection of the above testimony without any reasonable reason, and it is concluded that there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion, and further, the defendant's act of guarantee of this case belongs to the conclusion of a contract which will be borne outside the defendant's budget, and thus null and void without the resolution of the general meeting of the defendant union members or the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges who have participated in the trial and judgment.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)