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 2003Gahap36244, which is 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 above court 20,000 won for the reason that the lawsuit cannot be calculated. The other party posted a lawsuit against the other party, 2003Da36626, which is the appellant, for the above court 203Kayang Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Syang Industry”) to verify existence of the golf membership agreements, and then posted a stamp of 20,000 won for the reason that the lawsuit cannot be calculated. The above court 20,000 won for the reason that the other party's appeal against the above △△△ case was concluded by combining it with the other party's arguments in the above court 2015.45.25.

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 between the other party and the appellant,” and that it did not prepare a membership membership membership agreement, and that he was issued a membership card from the Gyeyang Development Co., Ltd. (Seoul Tourism Development Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and then did not pay a fixed amount of membership fee. The appellant did not appear to have any content of the right to the Gwansung golf club on the records and did not appear to be able to dispose of the golf club membership freely. Therefore, the instant lawsuit constitutes a case where the appellant cannot calculate the instant lawsuit, and therefore, the appellate court’s order to attach KRW 20,000,000 to the instant lawsuit and the amount corresponding to the instant lawsuit was issued without any objective basis for calculating the first instance court’s order, and thus, the appellate court’s order is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The records show the following facts.

(1) On December 1, 1989, the Young-do Governor started to operate the △△△△-do golf club development project, a membership golf club with 27 square meters in size, on the land (hereinafter “instant golf club site”) located in the Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○-gun, Gyeonggi-do, by obtaining approval of the business plan under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act from the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on December 1, 1989. On December 1, 1997, the bankruptcy occurred on or around December 10, 1997. Accordingly, on January 30, 1998, the Young-gu Co., Ltd established a right to collateral security on the instant golf club site, and started an auction upon obtaining a voluntary decision to commence the auction on January 30, 1998.

(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 the Simsan Development failed to pay the above successful bid price and re-auctions took place, the Simsan Development and the other party entered into an agreement on the waiver of management rights and the acquisition of the golf course of this case on November 26, 199. At the time, the Simsan Development requested the Simsan Development to postpone the re-tender date, instead of accepting the request for the Simsan Development, the Simsan Development shall carry out the affairs such as the registration of successful bid by accompanying with the Simsan Development with approximately KRW 3.5 billion, which was 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was 17.5,550,000,000,000 won, and if it did not implement the above matters, it shall submit all the security documents requested by the Simsan Development and the other party to whom the project plan of this case was concluded with the competent authority or the competent authority by submitting the membership recruitment agreement to 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) On the other hand, on September 12, 1997, he/she concluded an application for the approval of the invitation of 170 million won per membership 1.7 million won for two-one hundred-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-one-six-one-six-one-one-six-one-one-six-one-one- nine-one- nine-one- nine-one-one- nine-one- nine- nine-one-one- nine- nine-one- nine-one- nine- nine-one-one- nine-one-one-one- nine-one-one- nine.

(6) Thereafter, on July 29, 1998, the appellant filed a pledge on each of the above membership certificates 250 and 20.

(7) In the first instance court, the other party asserted that there was no membership right on the Dog golf club, the appellant, on the grounds that he lawfully succeeded to the approval of the business plan of Dogsung golf club, and that the appellant did not legally succeed to the approval of the business plan of Dogggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

(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 the value of paragraph (1) cannot be calculated, the value of the lawsuit shall be governed by the provisions of the Act on the Stamps for Civil Litigation, Etc...." Article 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where multiple claims are filed in one lawsuit, the value of the multiple claims plus the value of the subject matter of lawsuit 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 "where a lawsuit cannot be calculated as a lawsuit on the basis of its property right, the value of the lawsuit cannot be determined by the market price of the article 10."

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. as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the value of membership for the △△ golf club is the market value at the time of filing a lawsuit, and that if it is difficult to understand the market price, it can be calculated as the acquisition price of the relevant goods, etc. If it is difficult to identify the market price, it is difficult to calculate as the acquisition price because there is no data showing the market price of the above membership at the time of filing the lawsuit. Accordingly, it is difficult to calculate as the acquisition price of the above membership 160,000 won per 60 won per 20 membership certificate per 600,000 won per 200,000 won per 200,0000 won per 600,000 won per 206,000 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)