Jeollabuk-do Cooperative (Attorney Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Governor of Jeollabuk-do (Attorney Kim Dong-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 19, 1992

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff as of June 27, 1991 for the establishment of the Jeollabuk-do synthetic resin industrial cooperative shall be revoked.

1. The Governor of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act provides for the approval of the establishment of a cooperative for the same purpose as those of the Association's 1, 2 (Application Form), 2-2 (Evidence No. 8; hereinafter the same shall apply), 3 (Evidence No. 11; 2, 5 (Evidence No. 1, 6-2), and 10 (Recommendation No. 10), and 12 (Recommendation No. 12) to the defendant for the establishment of a cooperative on the following grounds: The Governor of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act provides for the same purpose as those of the Association's 1, 2, 3, and 5 (Evidence No. 11; hereinafter the same shall apply to the establishment of a cooperative; the Governor of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act provides for the approval of the establishment of the Association's 1, 2000 if he/she had no dispute on the establishment thereof; the Governor of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act provides for the same purpose as those of the Association's 2, which is hereby established.

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's application for authorization satisfies the requirements stipulated in Article 28 (1) of the Cooperatives Act, but the defendant rejected the application for authorization of this case because it is not required to submit an application document required by the president of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperative Association, which is a document not required to submit an application document. This is unlawful, and the provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cooperatives Act, which is stipulated as a document to be submitted along with the application document, are contrary to the exemplary provisions. Thus, the above provisions of Article 28 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Cooperatives Act do not constitute a ground to justify the disposition of this case. The defendant argues that the competent authority shall grant discretion to the establishment of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives with regard to the improvement of economic status through the cooperative organization of small and medium enterprises and the balanced development of the national economy. The plaintiff's assertion that the establishment of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperative Association is not in violation of the provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cooperatives Act, which is not in force within 50 months of the establishment of the Cooperatives Association.

Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 6 (1) of the Domination-type Cooperatives Act, cooperatives are administrative districts of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan Cities, and Dos. However, if there are special reasons, two or more administrative districts, and specific areas as determined by the Presidential Decree can be established in one administrative district. In light of the purport of the above provision, other small and medium enterprise owners can not establish only one cooperative within the same business area. Thus, even if the defendant has the right to establish a cooperative as a competent authority pursuant to Article 28 of the Domination-type Cooperatives Act, it is difficult to properly determine whether many small and medium enterprises are actually working across the country in terms of the purpose of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act, so it is difficult to determine whether the requirements for authorization are met in terms of the formation of the small and medium enterprise cooperative, and therefore, before the competent authority determines whether to grant authorization, it cannot be concluded that there is a violation of the provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Domination-type Cooperatives Act which are established in the small and medium enterprise cooperative association or its main business area.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's application of this case shall be rejected in an unlawful way regardless of whether the president of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives recommended the above recommendation, so it cannot be deemed that the defendant's rejection disposition was not appropriate as a ground for the disposition of this case due to the lack of the above recommendation, and the above application for approving the establishment of the plaintiff's association of this case cannot be permitted as it violates Article 6 (1) of the Cooperative Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

July 3, 1992

Judges Eiopi (Presiding Judge)