The act of selling non-member agricultural products to non-member agricultural cooperatives;

The act of selling agricultural and fishery products produced by non-member cooperatives (including special cooperatives based on agricultural cooperatives) may be caused to the extent that such act does not exceed 1/5 of the total business amount in the relevant accounting year within the extent of the proviso of Article 59 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act as long as the act of selling agricultural and fishery products produced by non-member cooperatives does not interfere with the use of the association members, but the same shall not apply to the direct shipment by the non-member producers, and the agricultural products brought by the general merchants

Articles 5, 8, 59, and 127 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Article 10 of the Agricultural and Agricultural Products Wholesale and Agricultural Products Wholesale Promotion Act (Closure), Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Agricultural Products Wholesale and Agricultural Products Wholesale and Agricultural Products Wholesale

Seoul High Court Decision 75Da1487 delivered on October 7, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 11045Da11045 delivered on April 7, 197, Supreme Court Decision 233Du33 delivered on June 20, 200, Decision 525No869 delivered on October 7, 200)

Plaintiff, Ltd.

The Korea National Assembly of Mananan District

Gwangju District Court Decision 71Gahap91 decided May 1, 200

Supreme Court Decision 74Da208 Delivered on February 10, 1975

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

2. The defendant shall not perform wholesale acts exceeding 1/5 of the total sale quantity in the fiscal year concerned and similar wholesale acts such as consignment sale acts, and shall not perform any such act as a whole with respect to the audience which the general merchants bring into Korea by the general merchants, with respect to the audience (the fruits and vegetables) produced by non-members within the business territory of the central wholesale market in Yeongdeungpo-si.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 136,01 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from September 6, 1975 to the full payment.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

5. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff is seeking a declaration of provisional execution with the judgment that all of the costs of the plaintiff's 2 and 3 are borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 700,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from September 6, 1975 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff is an agent for the business of managing the central wholesale market. The defendant is a special agricultural cooperative established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and the defendant is not a member of the central wholesale market district in Yeongdeungpo-si, the fact that the plaintiff is an agent for the business of managing the central wholesale market, and the fact that the defendant has been doing so prior to the lawsuit in this case, such as the consignment sale of the office and the consignment sale of the office and the goods brought in by the merchants, etc.,

The plaintiff asserts that the act of selling similar goods produced by non-members such as the consignment sale of goods produced by the plaintiff's non-members in violation of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Wholesale Market Act is an infringement on the plaintiff's wholesale market business. The defendant argues that the defendant can act as consignment sale and wholesale of goods produced by non-members in light of the agricultural and fishery products wholesale market law or the legislative intent of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act and the interpretation of the law, and therefore, the defendant's association can act as consignment sale and wholesale of goods produced by non-members. Thus, the defendant's act of selling agricultural products produced by the non-members (including the defendant's special association and the defendant's association) should be included in the sale of goods produced by the non-members within the scope of the proviso of Article 59 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Article 6 (2) of the repealed Agricultural and Fishery Products Wholesale Market Act, Article 10 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the repealed Agricultural Cooperatives Act, Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 7 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, including the non-member's independent wholesale Market and Agricultural Products Act.

The issue of whether the business capacity of non-members exceeds 1/5 of the total sales in the pertinent fiscal year by including the members of other special associations established by the Agricultural Cooperatives Act to the defendant-members under Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Agricultural and Agricultural Products Quality and Agricultural Cooperatives Act shall be revealed at the end of the current fiscal year. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is unfair, but according to Article 37 (7) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act applied mutatis mutandis as Article 129 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the business plan decided at the general meeting of the association and the amount of the business before the pertinent fiscal year can be grasped. This argument is without merit.

Thus, the defendant union shall not perform any wholesale act exceeding 1/5 of the total sales in the fiscal year and any similar wholesale act such as consignment sale, etc. with respect to the goods directly shipped by the non-members from among the goods produced by the non-members from the daily members in Yeongdeungpo-si, and it shall not perform any such act with respect to the goods brought by the general merchants.

On the other hand, the defendant association had been engaged in the act of selling similar goods to the office which is produced by non-members prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case and the act of selling goods to the office which is brought by general merchants. Accordingly, in the pertinent fiscal year, similar wholesale act exceeding 1/5 of the total business amount and the act of selling goods to the office which is brought by general merchants are liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff company as a result of the act of infringing on the business of the plaintiff association. Accordingly, the damages shall be paid to the plaintiff's sales commission.

However, according to the testimony of non-party 1 of the first instance trial witness, sales commission can be recognized as the fact that the sales commission is 7% of the sales amount. According to the contents of the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 of the evidence No. 1970 to November 28, 1971, the defendant association can recognize the fact that the sales commission amount of non-members' products is 2,615,648 (the non-party 1 witness's testimony contrary to this and the testimony of non-party 2 of the first instance trial witness and the result of each of the first instance trials are insufficient to specify the scope of the sales commission amount of non-members' products, and the sales commission amount is 2,615,648 won, and the sales commission amount is 183,092 won (the amount less than 183,092 won) and the sales commission amount shall be deducted from 1050/100 of the sales fee of the non-members' products.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 136,01 as damages and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from September 6, 1975 to the time of full payment. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of infringement of the plaintiff's business is well-grounded, and the claim for compensation for damages is justified within the scope mentioned above, and the remainder is just and dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, shall be modified as it is unfair, and the total costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and all of the remainder shall be borne by the defendant as per the disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)