Whether the provisions of the articles of association of an agricultural cooperative that provides the scope of the share in the refund of withdrawing members violate the Agricultural Cooperatives Act.

When examining the purpose of the enactment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the related laws that stipulate the purpose of the establishment of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the purpose of the establishment of the agricultural cooperatives and the qualifications of members and their responsibilities, etc., insofar as this Act delegates the matters concerning the calculation of shares of members and the claim for refund of shares of members who withdraw from the agricultural cooperatives in the articles of association of the agricultural cooperatives, the provisions of the articles of association stipulate

Article 34 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act

Attorney Kim Won-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1966 delivered on October 5, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the first ground for appeal by the Plaintiff's Attorney Yu-seok and Kim Won-won.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 34 (1) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act which provides that "any withdrawing member may claim a refund of his share under the conditions as prescribed by the articles of association after the withdrawal year has passed," and Article 37 of the articles of association of the defendant cooperative which provides "matters concerning calculation of shares" pursuant to subparagraph 6 of Article 17 of the Act provides that "the shares of members of this cooperative shall be calculated in accordance with the following standards" and subparagraphs 1 through 3 of this Article provides for "payment of shares" and "business reserve" shall be calculated only in the case of dissolution of the cooperative as provided in subparagraph 4, and the method of calculating such shares shall be determined by the general meeting, and Article 20 (1) of the articles of association provides that "the withdrawing member may claim a refund of shares at the request of the withdrawing member" and Article 37 (1) of the above articles of association provides that the scope of the withdrawing member's shares shall be determined by the articles of association and the purport of the articles of association which provides that the withdrawing portion of the withdrawing member's share shall not go against the above three (3)."

In light of the fact that the Act delegates to the articles of association of the defendant association the matters concerning the calculation of the shares of the union members and the claim for the refund of the shares of the withdrawing union members, the opinion of the court below that the above articles of association of the defendant association do not violate the articles of association of the defendant association, which provides the scope of the refund shares, is justified.

The issue is that from the above point of view, it cannot be adopted as a result of attacking the original judgment, and from the same point of view as the original judgment, there is no need to examine the ratio of the plaintiff union's whole assets in this case. Therefore, there is no error of law in calculating the refund amount without confirming the ratio like the theory of lawsuit on the original judgment. In addition, there is no error of misunderstanding the purport of the agricultural cooperative system, violation of the provisions on property rights in the Constitution, and the provisions on the right to share in the Civil Act, or violation of the provisions on the right to share in the Civil Act.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the grounds of appeal No. 2 by attorney Kim Won-won are also examined.

As seen above, the scope of a claim for a refund against the defendant union is limited to the paid-in capital, revolving capital and business reserve by the articles of association of the defendant union, and the capital reserve of the defendant union is out of the limitation. The plaintiff is claiming a refund of shares to the defendant union, such as the theory of the lawsuit in this case, and it does not require the defendant union to pay dividends to the defendant union's surplus. Thus, the court below judged that the court below made a mistake in determining the capital reserve of the defendant union excluded from the claim for a refund, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and determined that the plaintiff claims a distribution of shares as a surplus in this case, or that the plaintiff made a claim for the distribution of the burden of proof in determining the capital reserve because it is true that the judgment of this case as to the refund of shares does not affect any influence, and therefore the appeal about this issue is in accord with the reasoning of the lawsuit, such as the theory of the court below, and there is no basis to view that there is any inconsistency in the reasoning or incomplete deliberation.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit and is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)