[2] In a case where Eul corporation, which was a golf club operator Eul, concluded a golf club sales contract with Byung, agreed to operate the golf club as a minority membership system, and Eul, etc. sought a prohibition against the act, the case affirming the judgment below that it was not possible to file a claim for prohibition on the ground that the golf club membership did not have a right of equalness, but in light of the overall circumstances, the judgment below rejected the claim for prohibition on the ground that Eul did not violate the duty of maintaining the minority membership solely on the basis that the granting of a right of reservation, etc. was not a right of equality

[2] Where Company A, a golf club operator, agreed to operate a golf club as a minority member upon entering into a golf club sales contract with Company B, etc., and Company A granted Party A’s right of reservation, etc. to its members, and Company C, etc. sought prohibition from its activities, the case affirming the lower court’s determination that Company B cannot file a claim for prohibition solely on the ground that the golf club membership did not have a right of equal nature, even though Company B did not have a right of equal nature. However, in light of all the circumstances, the lower court’s rejection of the claim against Party A’s right of preferential use of golf club facilities beyond the obligation not to do so, or the obligation not to use the golf club’s preferential rights to use the golf club facilities beyond the obligation not to infringe upon Party A’s preferential rights to use the golf club facilities, thereby violating Party C’s duty not to use the golf club facilities.

A. The Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”) does not stipulate that a member may claim a prohibition of a certain act against a sports facility business entity under private law. As such, the Plaintiff 1, 2, and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) cannot claim a prohibition of a certain act under private law against the Defendant based on the Sports Facilities Act.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of the Sports Facilities Act or the claim for prohibition.

B. Where a party entered into an agreement between the parties not to do a certain act, and the debtor violates such obligation, the creditor may seek against the debtor the performance of the duty of omission, and upon receiving a final and conclusive judgment ordering the omission, the creditor may suspend the state of the violation of the duty of omission by obtaining a substitute execution or a decision of indirect compulsory performance as an executive title, or remove the result of the violation.

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the court below acknowledged that the defendant entered into a golf membership sales contract with the plaintiff et al. with the plaintiff et al., and agreed to operate it as a small number of members in Korea 500. On the ground that the defendant's act of granting the right of reservation, etc. to the members of the Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "frequency Ballast") is called "assigning the status of the main member, etc." and the plaintiff et al. seeking the prohibition of such act is called "assigning the status of the main member, etc." and the plaintiff et al.'s claim against the plaintiff et al., seeking the prohibition of interference, exclusion or prohibition thereof cannot be filed on the ground that golf membership membership with the plaintiff et al. did not have the right to share as a real right. Thus, the court below held that the plaintiff et al. cannot claim the prohibition of the above act against the defendant, regardless of seeking monetary compensation for non-performance as provided by the Civil

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if the Defendant agreed to maintain a minority member while entering into a golf membership sales contract with the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendant is obligated not to join the Plaintiff, etc. in excess of the number of its members, and thus, the Plaintiff, etc. may file a claim against the Plaintiff, etc. to prohibit the act in violation of the agreement to secure the performance of such duty

Therefore, the lower court erred by deeming that golf membership membership was not prohibited solely on the ground that it did not have the right to possess the nature of golf membership.

However, as seen in the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant’s act of granting the right of reservation, etc. to the members of the Pakistan, cannot be deemed as a violation of the duty to maintain minority members, and thus the Plaintiff, etc. cannot claim the prohibition. Therefore, the lower court’s decision that rejected the Plaintiff, etc.’s claim of prohibition is justifiable in its conclusion and did not err by misapprehending

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 20 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 8338 of Apr. 6, 2007; hereinafter “former Sports Facilities Act”) and Article 19 subparagraph 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20394 of Nov. 20, 2007; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act”), sports facility business entities shall, at the request of their members, organize at least 10 operating committees representing their members, and the matters concerning the rights and interests of their members shall be consulted in advance with the relevant operating committee.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff et al. requested the Defendant to organize or consult the Steering Committee before the Defendant’s act of granting the right of reservation, etc. to the members of the Pakistan. Therefore, the Plaintiff et al.’s assertion that the Defendant incurred damages due to the Plaintiff et al.’s refusal of the Plaintiff et al.’s request for organizing the Steering Committee cannot be accepted.

Although the reasoning of the lower court is somewhat insufficient, the lower court’s determination that made the same conclusion is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation and application of Article 20 of the former Sports Facilities Act and Article 19 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Sports Facilities Act.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

A. Where the content of a contract between the parties to the contract is written in writing as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression should be recognized. However, if the objective meaning of the text is not clearly revealed, it shall be comprehensively considered such factors as the motive and circumstance in which the contract was made, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the contract by the parties, transaction practices, etc., and shall reasonably interpret the content of the contract in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense, and transaction norms so that it can be in line with the ideology of social justice and equity. In particular, if the content of the contract claimed by one party imposes a serious liability on the other party, it shall be more strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da6465, May 23, 1995; 2007Da40765, Oct. 25, 2007).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the defendant collected 20,000 square meters from April 199 to April 2002 from 50, and collected 200,000 square meters of 27, and imposed the special terms and conditions of membership recruitment for approximately 50 members (personal guarantee twice per month and at least 4,000,000) including membership recruitment fees for approximately 55,00 members, and 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

In addition to these facts, the terms and conditions of the operation of the minority membership system in the course of selling golf membership are shown to have been presented by the Defendant to guarantee the preferential rights of the regular members. In particular, the focus is on guaranteeing two or more reservations monthly reservations or more at the end of a week at which competition rate of the golf club membership is higher than that of the regular members. In general, a member holding a golf club membership with a deposit system is limited to having a right to preferentially use the golf club's facilities and a right to receive a refund of deposit money, and there is no right to exclusively use the relevant facilities. Thus, the Plaintiff, etc., who is the regular member of the Pakistan, does not infringe on the preferential rights to use the facilities of the non-member. In light of the fact that the golf club operation company does not have a legitimate interest to prohibit the use of the facilities if it does not infringe on the preferential rights to use the facilities of the non-member, the agreement on the preferential rights to use the facilities of the non-member, such as the right to use the facilities, should be interpreted to the extent that the Defendant does not infringe on the duty to use the specific facilities.

C. Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in light of the aforementioned interpretation and records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s granting the right of reservation, etc. to the members of the Pakistan cannot be deemed as making additional recruitments to the members of the Pakistan; the right held by the members of the Pakistan is limited to the secondary right to use a golf course subsequent to the members of the Pakistan, rather than the members of the Pakistan; and the right held by the members of the Pakistan is only limited to the secondary right to use a golf course; and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s right has been infringed to a certain extent by exercising such right to use it to the members of the Pakistan, so long as there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s right has been infringed to a specific extent, the Defendant’s preferential right to use as the members of the Pakistan is not practically infringed solely on the fact that the Defendants granted the secondary benefit of using the right of reservation

The judgment below did not err in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or omitting judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on golf membership membership rights, interpretation of legal acts, infringement of rights, etc., as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

As long as the Defendant’s act of granting the right of reservation, etc. to the members of the Pakistan violated the obligation to maintain minority members in golf membership sales contract concluded with the Plaintiff or cannot be deemed to constitute a tort, even if the value of golf membership possessed by the Plaintiff, etc. drops down, it cannot claim compensation for property damage or claim consolation money for mental suffering.

Although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat insufficient, the judgment of the court below that made the conclusion is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the breach of contract or the liability for tort or the violation of the duty of explanation as otherwise alleged in the ground of

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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.

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Park Il-young (Presiding Justice)