1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the second to the third to the third to the third to the sixth to the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts and the evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 1 through 4, 12, and 24 included the entire arguments, it is difficult to deem that the resolution of expulsion against the Plaintiff was inevitable as a final means, even though the above grounds for disciplinary action are acknowledged to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the resolution of expulsion of this case is null and void as an abuse of discretionary power, and as long as the defendant contests the validity of the above resolution, the benefit to seek confirmation is also recognized.

(1) Article 13(2) of the Rules on the Supply of Seeds of Defendant C may not be attached to the Association or its branch, regardless of whether it is an association or a special membership fee, other than the revenue fund reserve fund type approved by a general meeting of the board of directors.

However, the government's excessive amount of import gains can add membership fees to the amount of judgment on loss in the settlement of revenue, and the omission is defined as "the amount."

The Defendant’s supply of bean, which is imported free of charge under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, to its members, constitutes “a direct distribution by the Association itself,” and accordingly, imposing an association fee of KRW 500 per kilogram is contrary to the above provision. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff obtained the consent of the general meeting of shareholders as a result of the imposition of the imposition by the board of directors, it does not constitute

Although the Defendant asserted that the above supply provision was a dead culture since 2014 following the conclusion of the Korea-U.S. FTA, it is difficult to view it differently as long as the Defendant did not clearly amend the above provision through the procedure, even if there is no evidence to acknowledge it.