Whether the National Federation of Trucking Transport Business Associations is an independent organization separate from those of the Federation (negative)

The National Trucking Transport Business Association shall be limited to affiliated organizations affiliated to the Association for the mutual aid projects of the Association under the Land Transport Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it shall not be regarded as an independent organization separate from the Association.

Article 8 of the Land Transport Promotion Act, Articles 10 and 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Transport Promotion Act, Article 31 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4284 Decided March 28, 1989

Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Doz.

Incheon District Court Decision 89Na4673 delivered on June 15, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 8 (1) of the Land Transport Business Promotion Act provides that an additional association member and an automobile transport business association may operate a mutual aid business after obtaining permission from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for each association member and federation, and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Transport Business Promotion Act provides four associations or federations, including the plaintiff, as an association member and associations which can conduct the said mutual aid business, and subparagraph 1 of subparagraph 2 of subparagraph B, and subparagraph 6 of Article 8 of the same Act provides that the plaintiff's new operation of the mutual aid association shall be deemed to be for the purpose of mutual aid business under Article 8 of the Land Transport Business Promotion Act, and the plaintiff's new operation of the mutual aid association's operation of the mutual aid association's operation of the mutual aid association's operation of which is not for the purpose of election of its officers, budget and settlement of accounts, additional contributions, selection of mutual aid association members, business methods, and terms and conditions of mutual aid, and the plaintiff's general operation committee's new operation of the mutual aid association's operation of the mutual aid association's operation.

However, Article 8(1) of the Land Transport Promotion Act provides that an automobile transport business association and an automobile transport business association established under the same Act may carry on mutual aid business with the permission of the Minister of Construction and Transportation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Transport Promotion Act provides that an association and a federation capable of carrying on mutual aid business shall be four cooperatives or federations, such as the Plaintiff’s federation (No. 4) and the National Passenger Transport Business Association. Article 8 of the Land Transport Business Promotion Act provides that mutual aid business shall be one of the Plaintiff’s business objectives; the Plaintiff’s election of the officers of the mutual aid association under the mutual aid regulations is approved, budget and settlement, additional contributions, discount charges, etc.; the Plaintiff’s selection of a mutual aid business establishment and operation method of the mutual aid business; the Plaintiff’s establishment and alteration of its place of business, publicity and public announcement; and the Plaintiff’s establishment and operation method of mutual aid, etc., separate from the Plaintiff’s association’s articles of association, which shall be seen as an independent provision of the Mutual Aid Promotion Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the mutual aid association as judged by the court below is an unincorporated association that is separate from the plaintiff shall affect the conclusion of the judgment by making conflicting judgments on the party members with respect to the interpretation of statutes. Therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won