Open Decision Ledger · Corporate law & governance
Beyond the statutory business scope as a ground for agricultural corporation dissolution
Supreme Court, June 15, 2023, 2023Ma5434 (ruling)
Case name: 농업회사법인해산명령청구소송
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
For a dissolution order under Article 20-3(2)(iii) of the Act on the Cultivation and Support of Farm and Fishery Management Entities, does 'an agricultural corporation engaged in business outside the scope of business under Article 19-4(1)' mean an agricultural corporation conducting businesses other than those expressly provided in statutes and regulations and those directly or indirectly necessary to perform them, and is the fact of conducting such business alone enough to order dissolution?
Holding
It means an agricultural corporation conducting businesses other than those expressly provided in statutes and regulations and those directly or indirectly necessary to perform them. The bare fact that the corporation carried on business outside the range set by the Act is not by itself enough to dissolve it. In view of the balance with the other statutory grounds for dissolution and the serious effect of stripping the corporation of its legal personality, the content, circumstances, manner of conduct, degree of illegality and degree of public interest infringement of the out-of-scope business must be weighed together, and dissolution may be ordered only where the corporation can no longer be kept in existence.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
농업법인이 ‘법에서 정한 범위에서 벗어난 사업을 영위한 사실’만으로 곧바로 해당 농업법인을 해산할 것이 아니라, 범위를 벗어나 영위한 사업의 내용, 경위, 행위의 태양 및 위법성의 정도, 공익 침해의 정도 등을 종합하여 볼 때 해당 농업법인을 더 이상 존속시킬 수 없는 경우에 이르러야 한다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
An agricultural corporation should not be dissolved immediately upon the mere fact that it has 'conducted business outside the scope prescribed by law'; rather, it is reasonable to hold that the point must be reached where the agricultural corporation can no longer be allowed to continue its existence, when the content of the business conducted beyond such scope, the circumstances, the manner of the acts, the degree of illegality, and the degree of infringement upon the public interest, etc. are considered in a comprehensive manner.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
재항고를 기각한다. 재항고비용은 신청인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed. The costs of the re-appeal shall be borne by the applicant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
범위를 벗어나 영위한 사업의 내용, 경위, 행위의 태양 및 위법성의 정도, 공익 침해의 정도 등을 종합하여 볼 때 해당 농업법인을 더 이상 존속시킬 수 없는 경우에 이르러야 한다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
when the content of the business conducted beyond such scope, the circumstances, the manner of the acts, the degree of illegality, and the degree of infringement upon the public interest, etc. are considered in a comprehensive manner, it is reasonable to hold that the point must be reached where the agricultural corporation can no longer be allowed to continue its existence.
Factors
- 법령에 명시된 사업 및 이를 수행하는 데 직접 또는 간접으로 필요한 사업 이외의 사업을 하는 농업법인
- 농업법인 해산명령의 다른 사유들과의 균형
- 해산명령이 해당 농업법인의 법인격을 박탈하는 중대한 효과를 발생시키는 점
- 범위를 벗어나 영위한 사업의 내용, 경위, 행위의 태양 및 위법성의 정도, 공익 침해의 정도
Unofficial English translation
• An agricultural corporation that conducts business other than the business expressly specified by statutes and regulations and the business directly or indirectly necessary for performing such business
• The balance with the other grounds for a dissolution order of an agricultural corporation
• The fact that a dissolution order produces the grave effect of depriving the agricultural corporation of its legal personality
• The content of the business conducted beyond the scope, the circumstances, the manner of the acts, the degree of illegality, and the degree of infringement upon the public interest
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
‘법령에 명시된 사업 및 이를 수행하는 데 직접 또는 간접으로 필요한 사업 이외의 사업을 하는 농업법인’을 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
means 'an agricultural corporation that conducts business other than the business expressly specified by statutes and regulations and the business directly or indirectly necessary for performing such business'.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When out-of-scope business has been corrected after an order under Article 20-2 of the Act, what weight does that correction carry in deciding whether the corporation can no longer be kept in existence?
A record showing the content, circumstances and degree of public interest infringement of the particular out-of-scope business would call for this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 19-4(1) or Article 20-3(2)(iii) of the Act or to Article 20-5(1) of its Enforcement Decree, or a later decision setting a threshold for the level of violation.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the decision as presenting a new standard, while the independent reading marks precedent status as unconfirmable. The difference lies in whether the reader takes the holding as breaking from earlier case law or simply cannot verify that relationship from the text given.
‘법령에 명시된 사업 및 이를 수행하는 데 직접 또는 간접으로 필요한 사업 이외의 사업을 하는 농업법인’을 의미한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its ruling of 15 February 2023 (2022Ra20993), dismissed the claim for a dissolution order. It held that the degree of the departure from the business range set by the Act was not so serious that the corporation, the subject of the case, could no longer be kept in existence.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the reasons of the ruling below against the legal principles set out above and the record, it held that the court below had not misapprehended the law on the dissolution order of an agricultural corporation in a way that affected the ruling, in breach of the Constitution, statutes, decrees or rules. It dismissed the re-appeal, with the costs on the applicant, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An agricultural corporation whose business is one expressly provided in statutes and regulations, or one directly or indirectly necessary to perform such a business.
- A case in which the content, circumstances, manner, degree of illegality and degree of public interest infringement of the out-of-scope business still leave room for the corporation to continue in existence.
- An agricultural corporation whose continued existence fails for reasons of its founding membership or of the Commercial Act, which fall under other items of Article 20-3(2) rather than item (iii).
Record verification notes
Set the disputed business against the scope of Article 19-4(1) of the Act and Article 20-5(1) of its Enforcement Decree, and identify precisely which business lies outside it and whether it is directly or indirectly necessary for a business the statutes provide. Then gather what shows the content, circumstances, manner, degree of illegality and degree of public interest infringement, since the Court weighed those together and required that continued existence be impossible. Note also the procedure under Articles 90 to 92 of the Non-Contentious Case Procedure Act, under which the court decides by ruling and must hear the statements of interested persons and the prosecutor's opinion before deciding.
From the official text
Points at issue
농업법인 해산명령 청구 사유로서 농어업경영체 육성 및 지원에 관한 법률 제20조의3 제2항 제3호에서 정한 “제19조의4 제1항에 따른 사업범위에서 벗어난 사업을 하는 농업법인”의 의미 및 이에 해당한다는 이유로 농업법인을 해산하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of "an agricultural corporation that conducts business outside the scope of business under Article 19-4 (1)" as provided in Article 20-3 (2) 3 of the Act on the Fostering and Support of Agricultural and Fishery Management Entities, as a ground for a claim for a dissolution order of an agricultural corporation, and the requirements for dissolving an agricultural corporation on the ground that it falls within such provision
Summary of the holding
농업법인 해산명령 청구 사유로서 ‘농어업경영체 육성 및 지원에 관한 법률’(이하 ‘법’이라 한다) 제20조의3 제2항 제3호에 규정된 “제19조의4 제1항에 따른 사업범위에서 벗어난 사업을 하는 농업법인”이란 ‘법령에 명시된 사업 및 이를 수행하는 데 직접 또는 간접으로 필요한 사업 이외의 사업을 하는 농업법인’을 의미한다. 그리고 농업법인 해산명령의 다른 사유들과의 균형, 해산명령이 해당 농업법인의 법인격을 박탈하는 중대한 효과를 발생시키는 점 등을 고려하면, 농업법인이 ‘법에서 정한 범위에서 벗어난 사업을 영위한 사실’만으로 곧바로 해당 농업법인을 해산할 것이 아니라, 범위를 벗어나 영위한 사업의 내용, 경위, 행위의 태양 및 위법성의 정도, 공익 침해의 정도 등을 종합하여 볼 때 해당 농업법인을 더 이상 존속시킬 수 없는 경우에 이르러야 한다고 봄이 타당하다.
Order
재항고를 기각한다. 재항고비용은 신청인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed. The costs of the re-appeal shall be borne by the applicant.
Provisions referred to
농어업경영체 육성 및 지원에 관한 법률 제19조의4 제1항, 제20조의3 제2항 제3호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger