2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The following facts are clear in records:

A. The other party filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Gahap36244, which was the appellant, for the reason that the lawsuit cannot be calculated, such as the confirmation of existence of golf membership agreements, and posted 20,000 won for the reason that the lawsuit cannot be calculated. The other party posted a stamp of 95,000 won for the reason that the lawsuit was filed against the 20,000,000 won for the golf membership agreements and the 95,000 won for the said 95,000 won for the golf membership agreements, and the 2003Gahap36626 for the above court's 203Kayang Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Cyang Industry") and three other parties to the lawsuit cannot be calculated on the ground that the 20,000,000 won for the reason that the 20,000 won for the 205,000 won for the golf membership agreements and the 2015,05,05.

B. On the other hand, on February 17, 2005, the presiding judge of the court of the first instance ordered the other party to affix stamps of KRW 196,365,00 [this lawsuit is deemed to be KRW 56,00,000 ( KRW 160,000 per head of the court of first instance x Chapter 350 per head of the court of first instance x 160,55,000)] within seven days from the day on which the order was served on the other party after the closing of argument, and then ordered the other party to attach stamps of KRW 196,36,00 (the remaining amount excluding KRW 190,000 per head of the court of first instance x 350). The above order of correction was served on the other party on February 21, 2005, and the other party paid KRW 196,360,500,000 for additional payment on March 2, 2005.

C. On February 28, 2005, the judgment of the court of first instance was served on the appellant. On March 11, 2005, the appellant submitted a petition of appeal attached to KRW 1,000 on March 11, 2005, and on March 17, 2005, the presiding judge of the court of first instance served on the appellant an additional stamp 246,11,500 won [this case’s complaint is an enlightenment 46,720,000,000 won (160,000 won per membership 160,000 x 296,112,50 won for membership right x 292) and ordered the appellant to pay the remainder after subtracting the amount of stamp already attached to the appellant from the amount of KRW 1,000]. < Amended by Act No. 7305, Mar. 17, 2005>

D. After that, on March 30, 2005, the appellant filed a lawsuit with the amount of KRW 20,000,100, which was calculated as KRW 142,500, and paid the remainder of KRW 141,500, excluding KRW 1,000, which was already posted on the petition of appeal, as revenue stamps. The appellant did not correct the remainder of KRW 245,970,00 ( KRW 246,11,500 - 141,500) within the period specified in the above order of correction, on the ground that the presiding judge of the court of first instance did not revise the stamp on April 13, 2005.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The appellant stated that the instant lawsuit constitutes a case where the appellant cannot calculate the instant lawsuit on the grounds that “the appellant does not have the right to the enlightenment-type Institute and the cooperative industry, which is the appellant pursuant to the membership membership agreement with the other party,” and that the education-type institute, the cooperative industry did not prepare a membership membership agreement, and that the appellant did not receive a fixed amount of membership fee from the Youngdong Development Co., Ltd. (the mutual name before the change: Yang Tourism Development Co., Ltd., and the after the change) and did not pay a fixed amount of membership fee. The records do not indicate that the content of the right to the Yangyang-type golf club is not only the content of the right to the golf club but also does not appear to be able to dispose of the golf club membership freely, and therefore, the instant lawsuit constitutes a case where the appellant cannot calculate the instant lawsuit. Therefore, even if the appellant filed the instant lawsuit on the grounds that the appellate court’s order was based on the objective calculation of the amount of KRW 200,000,000,00.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The records show the following facts.

(1) On December 1, 1989, he/she had obtained approval of the business plan under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act from the Gyeonggi-do Governor on December 1, 1989, and started to operate the Yangyang PC golf club development project, which is a membership golf course of 27 persons in size, on the land of 112 square meters in Gyeonggi-gu, Yang-si, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si (hereinafter “instant golf club site”). On December 10, 1997, he/she defaulted on or around December 10, 1997. Accordingly, on the instant golf club site, he/she started an auction with a voluntary decision to commence the auction upon receiving a decision to commence the auction on January 30, 1998 on the instant golf club site.

(2) The Simsan Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Simsan Development”) was awarded the instant golf course site in KRW 19.5 billion on February 25, 1999 in the said auction case, and acquired the instant golf course site in KRW 1,074,621 square meters from the Youngdong Development around April 199, and obtained a modified approval of the business plan with respect to business succession on April 24, 199.

(3) When a re-auction was conducted due to the failure to pay the above successful bid price, the Simsan Development and the other party entered into a contract for waiver of management rights and acquisition of the golf course of this case on November 26, 1999. At the time, the Simsan Development requested the Simsan Development to postpone the re-tender date, instead of accepting the request of the Simsan Development, the Simsan Development entered into a contract for postponement of the re-tender date, and instead, the Simsan Development entered into a contract for the recruitment of members with approximately KRW 3.5 billion, which was prepared by five days before the next bidding date, and entered into a contract for the re-tender with the Simsan Development, and received a loan from the Simsan Development, which was 17.5,500,000 won, the successful bid price was 5,000 won. In the event that the above matters are not implemented, all of the management rights on the Yang-TPC golf club were waived, and the other party entered into a membership recruitment contract with the competent authority or the competent authority.

(4) Even if the second bidding date was designated on December 28, 199 by applying for the postponement of the second bidding date to the court pursuant to the instant golf course acquisition agreement, the third party did not prepare the said 3.5 billion won even prior to the date of the second bidding. On December 28, 1999, the third party was awarded the instant golf course site at KRW 22,505,00,000 after participating in the bidding on the date of the second bidding, and paid all the successful bid price on February 29, 201. On November 29, 2001, the approval of the alteration of the business plan was obtained based on the instant golf course acquisition agreement.

(5) Meanwhile, on September 12, 1997, he/she concluded an application for approving the invitation of 170,000 won per membership letter with 160 million won on September 24, 1997, he/she applied for the alteration of 170,000 won per membership letter 16,000,000 won on September 30, 1997 by filing an application for alteration of 160,000 won per membership letter 16,000,000,000 won with 16,000,000,000 won on October 7, 1997, 196-16-2,000,0000 won on December 2, 1997, 196-16-1,000,000 won on two-6,000,000 won per membership letter 2,000,000 won.

(6) Thereafter, on July 29, 1998, the appellant filed a pledge on each of the above members and Chapter 250 and Chapter 20 among the members with interest to the appellant. < Amended by Act No. 5537, Jul. 29, 1998>

(7) In the first instance court, the other party asserted that there was no membership right to the Gyeyang Golf club, which is the appellant, on the grounds that he legally succeeded to the approval of the business plan of the Yang PC golf club, and that the appellant did not legally succeed to the approval of the business plan of the Yang PC golf club, and the appellant argued that the other party did not legally succeed to the approval of the business plan of the Yang TPPPC golf club, and that the cooperation industry lawfully acquired membership rights to the Yang PCF club.

(c) Contents of the relevant legal regulations;

Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where jurisdiction is determined according to the value of the subject matter of lawsuit in the Court Organization Act, the value of the lawsuit shall be calculated on the basis of the profit alleged in the lawsuit." (2) If it is impossible to calculate the value of paragraph (1) of this Article, the value of the lawsuit shall be governed by the provisions of the Act on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, Etc., and Article 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where several claims are filed in one lawsuit, the value of the lawsuit shall be added to all the values of the multiple claims shall be determined." Article 2(3) of the Act on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, etc. provides that "the value of the lawsuit may be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Articles 26(1) and 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the standards for calculating the lawsuit may be determined by the Supreme Court Regulations, and Article 2(4) of the Act on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, etc. provides that "the market value of the lawsuit cannot be calculated on the same subject matter as the market price of the lawsuit, and Article 10(2).

D. Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the value of golf membership shall be the standard market value of the pertinent taxable case. However, in light of the provisions of Articles 10(1), 11, and 12(1) of the Regulations on the Stamps Attached to Civil Litigation, etc., it is reasonable to view that the value of membership for the quantitative PC golf clubs shall be the market value at the time of filing a lawsuit, and if it is difficult to understand the market price, it shall be calculated as the acquisition price of the relevant goods. Since there is no data showing the market price of the above membership at the time of filing a lawsuit, it is inevitable to calculate as the acquisition price of the above membership. Accordingly, it is reasonable to raise 160,000 won per 60,000 won per 20,000 won per 60,000 won per 206,000 won per 60,000 won per 200,000 won per 60,000 won per 206,000 won per 20,00 won per 6,000.

(2) Therefore, even though the appellant has been duly served with the above order of correction, the appellant did not pay 141,500 won, excluding 1,000 won, which was calculated as KRW 20,00,000, and then added 142,500,000, which was calculated as KRW 142,50,000, and did not correct the remainder of additional revenue stamps (245,970,500 - 141,500 won) within the period specified in the order of correction. As such, the presiding judge of the court of first instance issued the first instance order pursuant to Article 399(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the first instance order is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the first instance court is legitimate, and all appeals by the appellant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-sung (Presiding Judge)