In a case where the board of directors decided that “A’s employee Eul working for a local agricultural cooperative company (“A”)’s purchase of farmland and the application for membership is not properly managed by Eul’s farmland,” and that “A’s decision on membership shall be reserved until it is confirmed whether the Plaintiff’s actual cultivation is or not,” and that “A’s decision on membership shall not be reserved until it is confirmed.” The case holding that “A’s continued postponement of the examination without any justifiable reason without actively confirming whether B’s actual cultivation is or not, the case holding that “A’s continued postponement of membership without any justifiable reason,” which is, a member’s qualification, is, and thus, a member’s refusal of entry or demand a member’s unfavorable condition than that of other members.

In a case where the board of directors decided that “A’s actual cultivation is unclear and that B’s application for membership is not properly managed,” and that “A’s application for membership is suspended until confirmation is made,” and that “A’s application for membership is allowed to be admitted,” the case holding that B’s application for membership has the address within the district of A’s association, and it is recognized that A’s actual cultivation of farmland with a size of 1,134 square meters has satisfied the requirements for membership under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, and on the grounds that B’s application for membership has no other reason to refuse the actual cultivation of B’s farmland, and that A’s continuous postponement of membership examination without actively confirming the existence of the actual cultivation of B’s farmland without any justifiable reason is a refusal to enter the association or a requirement to enter the association more unfavorable than other members.

Articles 19 and 28 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Plaintiff

Jeonju Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Hong Hob, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 7, 2010

1. The defendant expresses his/her intention to accept the plaintiff as a member of the defendant.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap's 1 through 7, 9, 10, 17, and Eul's 1 through 5:

A. Status, etc. of the parties

(1) Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives is a local agricultural cooperative under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act established with the aim of enhancing the agricultural productivity of its members and promoting the expansion of markets for agricultural products produced by its members and the unification of distribution, and improving the economic, social, and cultural status of its members by providing technology, funds, materials, information, etc. required by its members.

(2) On December 11, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased 1,134 square meters (hereinafter “the farmland in this case”) prior to the volcanic Do of Jeon-gun, Jeoncheon-gun, Seoul, a farmland, as an employee of Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives.

(3) On the other hand, Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd is a majority of its employees.

(b) Related Acts and subordinate statutes and articles of incorporation concerning qualifications and admission procedures for cooperative members;

(1) In accordance with Article 16 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives’s articles of incorporation stipulate the qualifications for membership and the joining of partnership as follows.

Article 9 (Members)

(1) Members of our unions shall be:

1. Persons who have a domicile, residence or place of business in a cooperative zone and fall under the scope of farmers as referred to in Article 19 (4) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”);

Article 10 (Joining the Association)

(1) A person who intends to join a Korean union shall submit an application for membership to the union.

(3) Upon receipt of an application under paragraph (1) or (2), a cooperative shall refer to the board of directors to examine whether it is qualified as a member and notify the applicant of whether he/she accepts the application in writing.

(4) No cooperative shall refuse joining of a person who is qualified as a cooperative member, or attach unfavorable conditions to joining to any other cooperative member: Provided, That it may refuse joining of a person in whose case two years have not passed since his/her dismissal was made.

(6) An applicant for membership shall be a member by paying the first contribution, and the name, address or domicile, and subscription date of the member shall be stated in the register of members.

(2) The qualification and membership of the association and the scope of farmers as prescribed by the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof are as follows.

○ Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Article 19 (Qualification for Membership)

(1) A cooperative member shall have a domicile, residence, or place of business in a district of local agricultural cooperatives, and shall not join at least two local agricultural cooperatives.

(4) The scope of farmers under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 28 (Joining the Association)

(1) No local agricultural cooperative shall refuse to join a person qualified as a cooperative member without good cause, or attach unfavorable conditions to joining to any other cooperative member: Provided, That it may refuse joining to a person in whose case two years have not passed since he/she was expelled because he/she falls under any subparagraph of Article 30 (1).

○ Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Article 4 (Qualifications for Members of Local Agricultural Cooperatives)

(1) The scope of farmers who are qualified as members of a local agricultural cooperative referred to in Article 19 (1) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. A person who manages or cultivates farmland of not less than 1,00§³;

2. A person engaged in agriculture for at least 90 days a year;

C. The plaintiff's application for joining and the process of dealing

(1) On March 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for membership with Defendant Agricultural Cooperative. Accordingly, on March 27, 2009, Defendant Agricultural Cooperative decided to withhold membership on the ground that it is necessary to review the Plaintiff’s membership status more thoroughly with respect to new applicants, other than agricultural personnel and public officials, including agricultural cooperatives, after going through the procedure of having Nonparty 1, an employee Nonparty 1 make a business trip to the farmland of this case to verify whether the Plaintiff was farming or not, and then holding a board of directors on April 7, 2009 and examining the Plaintiff’s membership examination.

(2) Upon the Plaintiff’s filing of a civil petition, the NAN’s former North Korea Headquarters had Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives examine the Plaintiff’s membership and notify the Plaintiff of whether to accept the Plaintiff’s membership within 60 days from the date of receipt of the Plaintiff’s membership application. Accordingly, Defendant Agricultural Cooperatives held a board of directors on May 21, 2009 and decided to refuse the Plaintiff’s membership application on the ground that “the number of days of farming specified as 150 days in the Plaintiff’s membership application cannot be trusted” as a result of re-examination of the Plaintiff’s membership status as a member. The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff on the

(3) On May 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the NAF to the effect that the rejection of the above application by Defendant Nonghyup was unfair, and on June 15, 2009, the NAF provided guidance to Defendant Nonghyup on the effect that “the Plaintiff is cultivating the farmland of this case and review the Plaintiff’s membership qualification to the Plaintiff.” Defendant Nonghyup held each board of directors on July 16, 2009 and August 12, 2009, and conducted a review of the Plaintiff’s membership qualification to the Plaintiff. In examining the Plaintiff’s membership status to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was suspended until it is confirmed that it is unclear whether the Plaintiff actually cultivated and that it is not properly managed the farmland of this case.”

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is entitled to membership in accordance with the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and the articles of incorporation of the defendant agricultural cooperative, as it actually cultivates the farmland of this case.

(2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff could not confirm whether the plaintiff cultivated the farmland of this case as a result of the examination of whether the plaintiff is a member of the association. Therefore, the plaintiff's reservation of qualification should be justified.

B. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 6, 12, 13, and 16, the statement of business trip No. 1 written by the above non-party 1 on March 27, 2009, stating that "the above non-party 1 sets up a farmer's house in the farmland in this case, has a small amount of seedlings, and confirmed the fact that the former farmer's house in the Dosan Village had a farmer's house," and the statement of business trip No. 1 prepared by the non-party 3, who is an employee of the agricultural cooperative, on June 10, 2009, stating that "the farmland in this case, is affected by depreciation, spaw, spaw, spaw, and spaw, etc., and that the plaintiff's farmland in this case, which is the farmland in this case, is actually proved by the plaintiff's 1, 200, 100, 10, 20, 1.

(2) In full view of the aforementioned facts and relevant laws and regulations, the Plaintiff’s domicile in the area of Defendant Agricultural Cooperative, and the actual farmer of the farmland of this case with a size of 1,134 square meters, is recognized to have satisfied the requirements for membership under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, and there is no reason to refuse the Plaintiff’s membership. Thus, the suspension of the examination of membership without actively verifying the issue of whether Defendant Agricultural Cooperative is actually cultivated by the Plaintiff, without just cause, does not mean to refuse the Plaintiff’s membership, or to demand the Plaintiff to pay more unfavorable conditions than other union members.

(3) Therefore, Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd is liable to the Plaintiff to express his/her consent to the Plaintiff on March 23, 2009 with respect to the Plaintiff’s application for membership to Defendant Agricultural Cooperative member.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)

1) In relation to this, the Defendant asserted that in the preparatory document dated January 26, 2010, the term “self-cultivation” as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Farmland Act, namely, “a farmer is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his own land or growing or growing at least 1/2 of farming works with his own labor,” the Defendant is a member of the agricultural cooperative. However, as seen earlier, the Agricultural Cooperatives Act does not impose any restrictions on the qualification of a member of the local agricultural cooperative as “a farmer who has an address, domicile, or place of business in the area of the local agricultural cooperative,” and does not impose any restrictions on the qualification of a member of the agricultural cooperative, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, and even after examining the relevant provisions, it is impossible to find the grounds for demanding a “self-competitive” as a member of the agricultural cooperative, which is different from the legislative purport of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, to demand the qualification of a member of the agricultural cooperative as a result of drawing up the concept of “self-competitive” under the Farmland Act.