(b) A case denying the validity of expulsion disposition against the members of a hotel health clubs by failing to comply with an unfair request for payment of annual fees;

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The lower court: (a) on March 1987, as a person who runs a new hotel business, established and operated a health club with a swimming pool, health club, or facility at the above hotel (hereinafter “instant club”); (b) recruited its members for 300 members who are recruited at the time of establishment of a new club (hereinafter “newly established members”) by the said 10-year membership fee; (c) determined that the Plaintiff’s 9-year membership fee was imposed on the Plaintiff’s spouse’s right to free use of the instant club including the above 9-year membership fee, and that the Plaintiff’s 19-year membership fee was not imposed on the Plaintiff’s spouse and 2-year member’s spouse’s right to use the instant club; and (d) determined that the Plaintiff’s spouse and 2-year member’s right to use the instant club including the Plaintiff’s membership fee was not imposed on the Plaintiff’s 9-year member’s spouse’s right to use the instant club for 19-year member’s membership fee from 19-year member.

Examining relevant evidence by comparing it with records, the court below's finding of the above facts is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment or by misapprehending the legal principles on the rights and obligations of the health club members, as argued in the judgment of the court below.

If the obligee’s demand for the performance of the amount exceeding the original obligation of the obligee, it is obvious that the obligee’s demand is excessive and that the obligee would not receive it if the obligee did not provide the requested amount, the demand shall be unlawful, and the cancellation of the contract based on such demand shall not be effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da47615, May 10, 1994; 94Da24565, Oct. 11, 1994; 94Da24565, Nov. 25, 1994; 94Da35930, Nov. 25, 1994; 94Da35930, Nov. 25, 1994). Thus, the judgment of the court below is just that the Defendant’s expulsion disposition for cancellation of membership agreement has no validity, and it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the subject of use of health clubs and the membership expulsion

In addition, the issue is that only two spouse and lineal family members of the plaintiff are eligible to file a lawsuit for confirmation of this case. However, since the plaintiff's claim of this case is clear that it is a claim seeking confirmation of the scope of rights of membership under the membership agreement entered into with the defendant, the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff is a legitimate party to the lawsuit for confirmation of this case, is justified. There is no reason to discuss

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The judgment of the court below is clearly stated that the scope of persons holding rights to use facilities free of charge by the plaintiff's membership includes not only the plaintiff but also two spouse and lineal family members, and it does not include that the plaintiff can use the instant club free of charge even without paying the annual fee. Thus, it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law inconsistent with the order and the reason as discussed in the judgment of the court below. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)