2. All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

3. At the same time, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs each interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from the corresponding date to October 2, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, on which each of the pertinent members’ numbers stated in the “member number” column is returned to the Plaintiffs, and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

4. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining conjunctive claims is dismissed.

5. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

(a) The primary claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money in attached Form 2 as stated in the "amount of claim" and each of them at the rate of 20% per annum from each corresponding day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the primary claim at the trial).

(b) Preliminary claim

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs each of the corresponding amounts stated in the “amount of claim” in the separate claim sheet in attached Form 3 and each of them at the rate of 20% per annum from the corresponding date to the date of full payment, as indicated in the “Initial Date of Calculation of Damages for Delay” column in the same Table, respectively (Plaintiffs 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 added the preliminary claim at the trial, and the rest of the Plaintiffs reduced the preliminary claim).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

(a) Recruitment of members of modern cement corporation;

1) Hyundai Cement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Modro cement”) decided to construct a golf course consisting of 00 00 square meters in size of 36 square meters in a piece of land (location omitted) at the (hereinafter referred to as “instant golf course”) with approval from the Gangwon-do Governor of Gangwon-do, and submitted a membership recruitment plan to the Governor of Gangwon-do with the following contents as specified in the following table with approval from the said business plan, and published it on daily newspapers (Seoul-do Residents’ Day, Gangwon-do Residents’ Day, Gangwon-do Gangwon River Day

The number of regular recruitment plans (public notice) for the number of regular facility size included in the main sentence shall be KRW 250,000,000,000 won/50,000 won/50,000 regular members of KRW 735,000,000 regular members around October 206, 2006, and KRW 280,000,000,000 won/50,000,000 won/50,000,000 won/50,000,000 won (corporation) around February 2007, 2007, the number of regular members of KRW 100,29,000,000 on March 208, 208 (corporation).

2) Hyundai cement, together with the foregoing, established a rule with the following table, and advertised benefits that can be enjoyed in the event of joining the instant golf course as a regular member of the instant golf course as listed in the table below.

본문내 포함된 표 ▣ 골프장 회칙 제4조 (총회원수) 본 클럽의 회원 수는 정회원 735명, 주중회원 300명으로 한다. 제5조 (회원의 종류) ① 정회원(개인 및 법인) ② 주중회원 ③ 가족회원 ④ 지명회원 ⑤ 명예회원 ⑥ 기타 회원 제13조 ① 입회금은 회원자격 보증금으로서 입회일로부터 회사에 5년간 무이자로 예치하며, 회원자격 존속기한 이후 탈퇴 시 원금만 반환한다. 제15조 (탈퇴) ① 회원은 입회일로부터 5년이 경과하지 아니하는 한 본 클럽의 승인 없이 탈퇴할 수 없다. ② 본 클럽은 회원의 탈퇴 시 서면으로 반환 요청 후 3개월 이내에 입회금의 원금만 반환한다. ▣ 회원 모집 광고 내용 ① 국제대회용 정규 36홀 골프 코스 회원 ② 모집 구좌 : 한정 구좌 ③ 회원자격 존속기한 : 5년 ④ 3인 회원 혜택 (정회원 1명, 가족회원 1명, 지정회원 1명) ⑤ 정회원 그린피 면제 및 주중 2인 경기 가능 ⑥ 월 4회 주말예약 보장(월 1회 위임 가능) ※ 퍼블릭 골프장 단양○○○ 컨트리 클럽 30-40% 할인

B. Plaintiffs’ admission to the instant golf course membership

1) The membership procedure of the instant golf course is a series of processes that issue membership certificates and bylaws of the instant golf course, if a person intending to join as a member files an application for membership and pays membership fees.

2) From April 2007 to June 2008, the Plaintiffs paid each of the corresponding money indicated in the column of “profescing” in the table of “profescing date” in attached Table 2 to Hyundai Cement, and joined the instant golf course as a regular member, respectively, and Hyundai Cement issued to the Plaintiffs a membership card with each of the pertinent member numbers indicated in the column of “member number” in attached Table 1.

C. Completion of the instant golf course and alteration of its rules

1) When Hyundai Cement completed the instant golf course on a scale of 36 holes on March 2009, it revised its rules to change the number of general members into 880 regular members and 1,000 secondary members, and submitted a membership recruitment plan pursuant to the following amended rules to the Governor of Gangwon-do by June 2009, and recruited its members.

The number of regular members of 360 million regular members of 50 million won or more (200-30 million-30 million won or more from a week) from among the 500-regular members of 880 million regular members of 50 million won or more from March 2009, the number of regular members of 4th regular recruitment time and facility size recruitment plans included in the main sentence, including 500-5th regular members of 500,000 from May 2009 (250-400-40 million won from a week) from among the 300-regular regular members of 50,000,000 won or more from May 209 (2, 500-4,000 won from a week) from among the 300-six regular members of 12.32 billion won or more from June 2, 2009.

2) Around September 2009, Hyundai Cement newly established a new member for the North (North) 2009 and recruited them in the form of regular members recruitment as listed below. Unlike existing regular members, members of the North (North) course were provided only two members, including one regular member and one family member, and the end reservation was guaranteed twice a month.

The number of regular members of 300 regular members of 300 million won around September 2009, 300 regular members of 300 million regular members of 300 million regular members of 300 million regular members of 7th regular recruitment time and facility size recruitment plan included in the main sentence, and 1,000 regular members of 30 million regular members.

3) At around March 2011, Hyundai Cement recruited regular members, North Korea (North Korea) course establishment members, and secondary members of the instant golf course as indicated below.

The number of regular members of 110 regular members (140 million won or more to 900 million won) from among the regular members of 110 regular members (140 million won or more to 900 million won) around March 201, 201, consisting of 86 regular members of the total number of the recruitment time and facility size recruitment plans in the order of the recruitment of tickets included in the main sentence, 500 secondary members (24 million won or more to 36 million won).

(d) Business transfer of golf courses in modern cement and indication of the plaintiffs' sloping yarn;

1) On February 26, 2010, Hyundai Cement transferred a single ○○○○○ consortium club to Daeyang Amho, Inc., Ltd., and upon the request of Hyundai Chya, Daeho Amal offered 30-40% discount benefits as in the previous one year after acquiring part of the members of the instant golf club as part of the members of the instant golf club.

2) On December 16, 2011, Hyundai Cement transferred the business part of the leisure business including the instant golf course to the Defendant, and the Defendant announced the above comprehensive transfer and acquisition of the business on January 10, 2012.

3) From the end of November 201 to the beginning of December 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an objection against Hyundai Cement, such as the amendment of the instant golf club rules, the additional recruitment of members, and the attempt to transfer the business of golf courses, and filed an application for the return of withdrawal and membership fees, respectively.

E. Recruitment of the defendant

1) After acquiring the instant golf course, the Defendant recruited the members of the golf course two times from December 201 to May 2012, 201 as indicated below.

The number of regular members of 880 full-time members (160 million won or more to 50 million won) from among 70 full-time members of 36 billion full-time members from around December 201, 201, 300 full-time members of 1,000 full-time members from among 1,000 full-time members (160,000 won or more to 50,000 won), including 10,000 full-time members from around May 2012, 201, 70 full-time members from among 300 full-time members (160,000 to 50,000 won) from among the full-time members (30,000 to 60,000 won).

2) In recruiting members as above, the Defendant: (a) classified the existing regular members into the “VIP membership”; (b) newly established the “VIP regular members” in separate treatment as to the use of the instant golf course; (c) newly established the “VIP regular members” in the case of VIP regular members; and (d) granted membership benefits to one regular member and three regular members; and (e) guaranteed a reservation at the end of the fourth week of each month; and (e) added additional benefits to the existing members, including the amount of 60 million membership by establishing the “B” and the amount of 60 million won.

3) The number of VIP regular members newly recruited until July 2012 is 75; 75; 27; 27; 436; and 681 members of the instant golf course as of August 6, 2012.

F. Return of the defendant's membership fee

The defendant filed the lawsuit in this case and demanded the defendant to withdraw and return the admission fee, and the defendant returned each of the relevant money stated in the column of "the return date of the amount equivalent to the admission fee" in the attached table of the attached table of the plaintiff's term of validity for each member of the golf club as specified in the rules of the golf club in this case and the attached table of the attached table of the second claim amount.

[Based on Recognition] A-1-12, 15-19, 29, 30 evidence (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul-4, 6, and 7 evidence, the fact inquiry results with respect to Gangwon-do Governor of the first instance court, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) Hyundai cement increased the number of its members without the consent or approval of its members (the number of its members is 735 existing regular members, the number of its members is 880 regular members from 300 main members to 1,000 main members, and the number of its members is 1,00) and the number of its affiliated members was collected from the new members, thereby granting benefits substantially identical to the existing regular members. In addition, the Defendant sold the single ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Stage club and reduced the previous discount benefits. In addition, the Defendant newly established VIP regular members who have priority over the existing regular members by changing the existing membership classification without the consent or approval of its members.

2) The foregoing modern cement and the Defendant’s series of acts constitute “a case where the agreement on membership rights and interests is modified” as prescribed by Article 19 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”).

3) The Defendant acquired the instant golf course business and succeeded to the rights and obligations of the members of Hyundai Cement pursuant to Article 27 of the Sports Facilities Act. The Plaintiffs demanded the Defendant to withdraw from the instant golf course and refund of the admission fees by serving a written complaint of this case. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs the principal of the instant golf course and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the written complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

4) However, since the defendant returned only the amount equivalent to the principal of each of the enrollment fees to the plaintiffs, it is liable to pay the balance of the enrollment fees remaining after appropriating the said money to the principal and interest in sequence in accordance with the legal principles of appropriation for performance and to pay the remaining amount

B. Determination

1) Relevant provisions

Attached Table 4 is as shown in the "relevant Provisions".

2) Whether the agreement has been modified as to the rights and interests of members

A) Interpretation of statutes

(1) Article 18 of the Sports Facilities Act provides that "a sports facility business entity shall observe the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree for the protection of the rights and interests of its members in the transfer and acquisition of membership qualifications, refund of membership fees, confirmation and issuance of membership cards, organization and role of the representative body, etc." Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "where the agreement on the rights and interests of its members is modified after the membership as a member, the existing member may withdraw, and where the withdrawal requires the return of membership fees, it shall be returned without delay." Thus, even if there is no special agreement under the above provision, the plaintiffs may seek the return of membership fees to the defendant."

(2) Furthermore, the phrase “where an agreement on membership rights and interests is modified” refers to a case where a sports facility business entity becomes unable to provide a member with the use of a sports facility, which was promised to guarantee a member in the course of membership recruitment, as a result of a de facto change of contractual obligation to guarantee a member in the course of membership recruitment to a disadvantage to a member, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the sports facility business entity becomes unable to provide a member with the use of a sports facility, which was committed before the change of social norms. Therefore, in the event that the sports facility business entity is able

B) Determination

(1) In light of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence, it is difficult to view that the agreement on the rights and interests of members was modified solely on the following grounds: (i) the Plaintiffs’ assertion; (ii) the amendment of the bylaws on the number of members without their consent; (iii) the establishment of a new course in North Korea (North Korea); and (iv) the reduction of discount benefits on the Mayang○○○○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

(A) On the premise that the instant golf course is 36 holess, Hyundai Cement does not have any means to announce or advertise that the total number of its members is 1,035 (735 regular members, 300 main members). Rather, Hyundai Cement revealed that the instant golf course is “27 holes,” and announced in daily newspapers as 1,035 regular members (735 regular members, 300 main members, 735 regular members, and 300 main members) by taking into account the current progress rate up to the time of the third recruitment, and announced that the number of its members is “1,035 members” (735 regular members, 735 main members, and 300 main members). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that maintaining the number of its members as 1,035 members (300 main members) is included in the terms of a contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

(B) The amendment to the rules on the number of golf course members did not occur unforeseeable after the Plaintiffs joined the golf course as a member, but was planned in advance from the time of the first recruitment of the golf course of this case. The Governor of Gangwon-do, the competent authority, also received reports on the application and completion of the membership recruitment plan of Hyundai Cement on such premise.

(C) The recruitment of the members of North Korea (North Korea) course is not a recruitment separately from the existing regular members, but within the scope of the existing regular members recruitment, and as long as the preferential right is not granted to them, it cannot be deemed that there was any disadvantage in the rights and interests of the Plaintiffs by the recruitment of the above regular members. The Plaintiffs’ recruitment leads to the increase in the number of members up to the extent prescribed by the rules of the Association. However, even though the time of their recruitment increased competition among the members, the rights and interests of the Plaintiffs were infringed upon, the increase in the number of members was naturally planned from the time of their membership, and there is no evidence to deem that the existence thereof makes it impossible for the Plaintiffs to implement the reservation condition guaranteed to the Plaintiffs (in the long term, it would result in relatively fasting the Plaintiffs’ subscription as they occupy the existing regular members on the condition that the number of the existing regular members is inferior to the existing regular members).

(D) In the case of VIP members, recruitment was made within the scope of regular members recruitment, and it is difficult to deem that the implementation of the existing reservation conditions guaranteed to the Plaintiffs was difficult, on the basis that they made it difficult to secure that the recruitment of VIP members was made four times a month at the end of the week. The Plaintiffs asserted that the reservation conditions against the Plaintiffs were changed from “four times a month at the end of the week” to “two times a month at the end of the week,” but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. However, in the case of the members recruited under the condition of guarantee of reservation at the end of the week, their membership fees are equivalent to North Korea (North Korea), and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs’ new usage conditions were changed to the same extent as the newly recruited members’ usage conditions (in the actual litigation process of this case, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiffs offered the use of golf courses to the Plaintiffs under the same conditions as before and after the end of the April of the month, while the Plaintiffs did not prove that the guarantee of reservation at the end of the month was infringed due to the above membership recruitment).

(E) In light of the fact that Hyundai Cement sold a golf club on February 26, 2010 to Taiwan, Inc., Inc., and thereby, the Plaintiffs lost the benefits of discount on the said golf club, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs did not claim withdrawal from the said golf club until the end of November 2011, but the said discount benefits cannot be deemed as an important content of the instant membership agreement, and furthermore, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant golf club as the Defendant’s acquisition of the instant golf club as an additional benefit of discount on the Plaintiff’s regular members of the golf club (hereinafter referred to as “FT”), and thus, it is difficult to view that the agreement on the rights and interests of the members was modified disadvantageous to the Plaintiffs.

(f) There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs violated the terms and conditions of use of golf courses (three-party membership treatment, guarantee of reservation at the end of the fourth week per month) which they had been guaranteed at the time of their membership, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant offered such agreements in the future was impossible or significantly difficult under social norms. Rather, since the number of regular members of the instant golf courses is not less than the number of originally scheduled members, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs’ disadvantage has been objectively occurred.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claims are without merit to examine the remainder.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) The term of validity of the Plaintiffs’ membership under the rules of the instant golf course expired, and the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to return the membership fee in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the rules of the Association.

2) Article 19 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21590, Jun. 30, 2009) provides that “where a member demands the return of the membership fee terminated, it shall be returned within 10 days from the date on which the member demands the return of the membership fee.” Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the principal of the membership fee and damages for delay from the date following the ten days after the date on which the Plaintiffs requested the return of the membership fee to

3) Nevertheless, the Defendant returned only the relevant money indicated in the column of “admission” in the separate sheet of claim amount in attached Form 2 on each corresponding day.

4) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs damages for delay and the damages for delay from the corresponding date to the date of full payment of the damages for delay, as stated in the “amount claimed” column in the separate claim amount table in attached Form 3, which remains after appropriating the said money to the principal and interest in accordance with the legal principles of appropriation of performance.

B. Determination

1) The occurrence of the obligation to return the deposit

A) According to each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 13, 24, 25, 31, and 32 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiffs may recognize the fact that the defendant expressed his/her intention of return of the membership fee on each of the pertinent days stated in the "the arrival date of the intention of return of the membership fee" in the separate claim No. 3 attached hereto, and there is no counter-proof. The defendant returned each of the money stated in the "date of return of the membership fee" in the separate claim No. 2 attached hereto to the plaintiffs on each of the corresponding days and Article 19 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act where a member requests the return of the membership fee terminated. However, if there is an agreement on whether to return the membership fee, the agreement shall prevail."

B) According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the amount of the above membership fee and the amount remaining after appropriation in the order of the principal and the damages for delay incurred from the date of delay (the day from the 11th day from the expiration date of the above membership fee or the 11th day from the expiration date) to the 11th day of the above membership fee.

2) Judgment on the defendant's defense

A) Defenses of the special agreement during the period of return

(1) Article 15(2) of the instant Rule provides that “The principal of the club shall be refunded only within three months after the member’s withdrawal in writing.” This constitutes an agreement on the return of the membership fee under the proviso of Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages for delay is groundless.

(2) However, if Article 15(2) of the above Rule includes the contents of a membership contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, it constitutes "Terms and Conditions" under Article 2 of the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs have agreed to hear the explanation of the above terms and conditions at the time of the membership contract of the golf club in this case and exclude the provisions of Article 19(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act from the time of the membership contract of the golf club in this case, and the above law provides that "any of the terms and conditions concerning the cancellation or termination of the contract in Article 9(1) and 5 excludes the right of the customers to cancel or terminate the contract in accordance with the law, or any provision that unreasonably reduces the enterpriser's duty to restore or compensate for damages due to the cancellation or termination of the contract, it is reasonable

(3) Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. Concurrent performance defense

(1) The defendant is obligated to return the plaintiffs' membership cards to the defendant at the time of the withdrawal. Since the plaintiffs' obligation to return the plaintiffs' membership cards and the defendant's obligation to return the membership fees are in simultaneous performance relationship, the defendant is obligated to return the membership cards from the plaintiffs at the same time, and therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for damages for delay is groundless

(2) The fact that the plaintiffs were in custody with the membership card of the golf course of this case issued from Hyundai Cement, and according to the entries and the purport of Gap's evidence No. 4, Article 23 (4) of the Rules of the golf course of this case provides that "a member shall carry the membership card when he intends to use the golf course and its incidental facilities."

In addition to the above facts, the obligation to issue a membership card is imposed on the sports facility business operator under Article 19(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act, and when a golf club business operator returns a membership fee without being refunded a membership card, considering the circumstances such as the risk of double return of the membership fee from the transferee when the withdrawing member transfers the membership card, it is reasonable to view that the obligation to return the Plaintiffs’ membership card and the Defendant’s obligation to return the membership fee are in the simultaneous performance relationship.

(3) However, the Defendant’s refusal of the return of the membership fee on the ground that there was no return of the membership fee as above is the purpose thereof for the Defendant to avoid the risk of double payment. It is not because the Plaintiffs’ right to claim the return of the membership fee and the Defendant’s right to claim the return of the membership fee are not due to an obligation under the bilateral contract under Article 536 of the Civil Act or a quid pro quo relationship similar thereto. Therefore, the Defendant has the power to refuse the return of the membership fee on the ground that there was no return of the membership fee, and it cannot be said that the Defendant cannot make a lawful demand for the Defendant’s performance unless the Plaintiffs provided the membership fee. The Defendant is liable for delay of payment after the passage of 11 days from the time when the Plaintiffs received the request for the return of the membership fee (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da47542, Jul. 9, 199).

(4) Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified within the above scope of recognition.

3) Scope of return

a)the scope of damages for delay;

(1) Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that “When it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist on the existence or scope of the obligation,” the part that “if it is deemed reasonable to resist on the existence or scope of the obligation,” refers to when there is a reasonable ground for the obligor’s assertion as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Therefore, the issue of whether the said dispute is unreasonable or not is relevant to the fact-finding and its evaluation by the court regarding the pertinent case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da50509, Apr.

(2) As seen earlier, inasmuch as the primary claim against the Defendant against the Defendant is entirely dismissed, and the conjunctive claim is partially accepted, it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s claim as to whether or not the Defendant claims are asserted by the Plaintiffs until the date the judgment is rendered, and thus, the interest rate for delay damages pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings cannot be applied until the date the judgment is rendered, and the interest rate for delay damages

(3) Therefore, beyond the above recognized portion, the plaintiffs' assertion cannot be accepted as it is without merit.

B) The balance due to the appropriation of performance;

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant agreed to cover the money paid by the Defendant to the principal of the membership fee as above, the said money should be appropriated in the order of expenses, interest, and principal pursuant to Article 476 of the Civil Act. Therefore, the said money paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs is preferentially appropriated for each of the pertinent money indicated in the column of “damage for Delay” in the attached Form 1 sheet, and the remainder is appropriated for the principal of the membership fee. Ultimately, the principal of the membership fee to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs remains only for each of the corresponding money indicated in the column of “amount for seal” in the

C) Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the corresponding amounts stated in the "amount of delay" in the attached Form 1 attached hereto to the plaintiffs, as well as the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from the corresponding date to October 2, 2013, which is the date of this decision, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed without merit, and each of the conjunctive claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the conjunctive claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be accepted in part of the defendant's appeal and it shall be modified as the judgment of the court of first instance, including the conjunctive claims of plaintiffs 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 added at the trial.

[Attachment Form No. 3]

Judges Lee Il-man (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The declaration of intention to return has been delivered prior to the expiry of the term.