logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1981. 2. 24. 선고 80다2855 판결
[공제금][공1981.4.15.(654),13741]
Main Issues

Whether a mutual aid project conducted by a unit agricultural cooperative is a nonprofit project

Summary of Judgment

Since a mutual aid project conducted by an agricultural cooperative is a nonprofit project, a mutual aid project conducted by the unit agricultural cooperative shall also be deemed a nonprofit project.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 58 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1560 Decided March 25, 1969

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

Pun Chang-gu Agricultural Cooperative

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2679 delivered on October 27, 1980

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the mutual aid contract of this case is concluded in accordance with the provisions of Article 58-2 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act by providing mutual aid provisions under Article 58 (1) 6 of the same Act as the mutual aid business under Article 58 (2) of the same Act. Thus, in light of the provisions of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (see Articles 1, 5, and 58), the mutual aid business conducted by the defendant agricultural cooperative of this case is a non-profit business. Accordingly, the court below's conclusion that the defendant cooperative of this case as a non-profit business should be justified (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da1560 delivered on March 25, 1969). Thus, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below that the mutual aid business of this case of the defendant cooperative of this case is a basic commercial activity under Article 46 of the Commercial Act, or that the mutual aid contract of this case is subject to Article 650 and Article 63 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)

arrow