(a) Whether a member of a fishing village fraternity has a right to share in compensation for losses incurred by the extinguishment of a fishery right paid to the fishing village fraternity;

(b) Whether the general meeting is appropriate, not by the method prescribed in the articles of incorporation of a fishing village fraternity, but by the community broadcasting according to custom, etc., and notified qualified members of the attendance as witnesses without voting rights;

A. The fishing village fraternity is an association that is not a juristic person organized by the members for the common purpose stipulated in the articles of incorporation. Thus, the compensation for losses due to the extinguishment of fishery right belongs to the collective ownership of the fishing village fraternity, barring any special circumstance, and the right to share of the fishing village fraternity members is not recognized

B. An extraordinary meeting in which a fishing village fraternity notifies some members of the general meeting of the matters to be convened through village broadcasting according to custom, without using the method of convening the general meeting in accordance with the articles of incorporation, and notifies some members of the general meeting of the matters to be convened by telephone or by person, and the qualified members to be present as a witness without voting rights, is unlawful.

A. Article 277 of the Civil Act, Article 15(4) of the Fisheries Act, Article 70(2), Article 71 and Article 73 of the Civil Act

1.

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 24 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

2.

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Park Ho-he et al. and two others

vice-dong fishing village fraternity

1. The Defendant confirms that each distribution resolution regarding compensation for losses due to the extinguishment of the fishery right (No. 4344 to 4347) at each extraordinary general meeting of April 27, 198 and December 28, 1990 is invalid.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff Park Jong-ho, who was a member of the defendant fishing village fraternity, expressed his intention of withdrawal from the defendant fishing village fraternity around 1981, around 1983 that the plaintiff Lee Jong-ho, and around 1984 that the plaintiff Lee Jong-ho would withdraw from the defendant fishing village fraternity, and that the defendant fishing village fraternity decided to dismiss the plaintiffs in the sense that the plaintiff's withdrawal from the above plaintiffs from the general meeting of shareholders on September 15, 1984 was not in dispute over the invalidity of each resolution under Paragraph 1 of the disposition of the defendant fishing village fraternity. However, since there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs expressed their intention of withdrawal from the defendant fishing village fraternity on the date of the above argument, or that the defendant fishing village fraternity decided to dismiss the plaintiffs at the general meeting of shareholders on September 15, 1984, the above argument is not accepted by the defendant.

B. In addition, the defendant also claims of this case under the premise that the plaintiffs have the right to share in the compensation amount, which is the pre-stage procedure for receiving the distribution of compensation amount due to the extinguishment of the fishery right as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, but the above compensation amount should be distributed only to the members of the fishing village fraternity who actually engaged in the fishery business, and the plaintiffs who do not actually engage in the fishery business have no right to share in the above compensation amount and cannot claim the distribution of the above compensation amount. Thus, the plaintiffs' right to seek the invalidity of each distribution resolution as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article cannot be claimed. Thus, according to the facts acknowledged in the above Paragraph (1) of this Article, since the fishery village fraternity is an association which is not a juristic person organized by the members of the fishing village fraternity for the common purpose as stipulated in the articles of incorporation, the compensation amount following the extinguishment of the fishery right belongs to the joint ownership of the defendant's fishing village fraternity (see Article 15 (4) of the Fisheries Act, therefore, the plaintiffs' right to share in the above compensation amount shall not be accepted by the above resolution of the above 16.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) Basic facts;

Defendant fishing village fraternities: (a) conducted joint projects to increase production capacity and living conditions of members of fishing village fraternities around 1981; (b) conducted joint projects to improve their economic status; (c) on September 15, 1981; (d) on September 18, 197, the number of members of the said fishing village fraternities was 30.4; (d) on September 8, 197, the number of members of the said fishing village fraternities was 8.4; (e) on September 15, 1981, the number of members of the said fishing village fraternities was 5; (e) on September 18, 197, the number of members of the said fishing village fraternities was 7.4; and (e) on May 3, 1982, the number of members of the said fishing village fraternities was 198; (e) on the basis of the resolution of 195, the said fishing village fraternities was no longer distributed among the members of the said fishing village fraternities; and (e) on the distribution of the said fishing village fraternities to 158.

B. Whether the defendant's resolution on the extraordinary general meeting of April 27, 198 is null and void

If Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 2-1 and 2-2, and testimony of Lee Young-chul were collected in the whole purport of oral proceedings, the articles of incorporation of the defendant fishing village fraternity shall consist of a leader and a fraternity (Article 27(1)); if a general meeting is held, a notice stating the date and time, place, agenda items, session, etc. shall be sent to all members and shall be announced on the bulletin board of the fraternity (Article 32(1)); and the defendant fishing village fraternity shall hold an extraordinary general meeting on April 27, 198 in order to resolve the distribution of compensation for losses due to the extinguishment of the above fishery right, the defendant's fishing village fraternity shall issue a notice of convening the general meeting pursuant to the above articles of incorporation to some members before the general meeting is held, or without public notice on the bulletin board of the fraternity, sent a notice of convening the general meeting to some members by telephone or letter, and notified the plaintiffs of convening the general meeting through the community broadcasting, and the above general meeting's resolution shall be deemed null and void.

As to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff Park Ho-ho was against the principle of good faith and the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff Park Ho-ho did not neglect to distribute the compensation money to the plaintiff Lee Jong-ho because he attended the special meeting held on December 28, 1990 and consented respectively to the resolution of distribution made on April 27, 198, which was held on the special meeting held on April 27, 198. Thus, it is against the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of speech. Thus, if the plaintiff Park Ho-ho did not know that the above Eul's request was made at the above general meeting on April 27, 198, while the plaintiff Park Ho-ho attended the above general meeting, the plaintiff Park Jong-ho did not have any reason to recognize that the plaintiff Lee Byung-ho did not neglect to distribute the compensation money at the time of the above general meeting, but did not have any reason to recognize that the plaintiff Lee Ho-ho did not neglect to distribute the compensation money at the time of the above general meeting.

C. Whether the resolution of the special general meeting of December 28, 1990 is legitimate

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, and 3 as well as the purport of the pleading in witness testimony, defendant fishing village fraternity, when convening an extraordinary general meeting on December 28, 1990, notified the plaintiffs to attend the above extraordinary meeting as a witness qualification rather than a fraternity member, while notifying the plaintiffs to attend the above extraordinary general meeting. The above extraordinary general meeting held on December 28, 199, held by the above defendant fishing village fraternity, the facts that the plaintiffs were unable to exercise voting rights in the resolution of the above general meeting because they did not deny the plaintiffs' qualification as a fraternity member and did not know voting rights. According to the above facts of recognition, the notice of convening the general meeting cannot be deemed a legitimate notice of convening the general meeting under the above articles of association, and since it cannot be said that the plaintiffs' voting rights cannot be resolved without giving their voting rights at the above extraordinary general meeting, the above resolution procedure and its ratification procedure shall also be invalid in the above extraordinary general meeting.

3. Conclusion

In addition, without examining whether there is a defect in the contents of the resolution at each of the above special meetings, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)