[2] The case holding that since the entries in the membership guarantee deposit certificate issued after receiving the membership deposit from the members of a golf club are given priority to the rules of the golf club operation association by individual agreement between the members and the company operating the golf club, the company is obligated to return the membership deposit to the member requesting the return after the expiration of the grace period regardless of the approval of the board of directors

[2] The case holding that, according to the rules of the golf club operation with a deposit membership system, even if there is room to interpret that the membership deposit can be refunded only after the lapse of five years with the approval of the board of directors, if the golf club operation company received the membership deposit from its members and issued the membership guarantee deposit with the statement that "if the certificate is requested to be returned from the holder of the certificate after five years' grace period, the membership deposit shall be refunded," the contents shall take precedence over the above rules of operation with the individual agreement between the members and the golf club operation company, so the golf club operation company shall return the membership deposit to the member requesting the return, regardless of whether or not the board of directors approval.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3, and Eul evidence 1 through 3:

A. On February 7, 2002, the Plaintiff joined the Plaintiff’s Rayman Club operated by the Defendant as a regular member, deposited 150,000,000 won with the security deposit for membership, and received the Plaintiff’s name from the Defendant a certificate of membership guarantee with the name of the Plaintiff. The said certificate states, “The Plaintiff proves that the amount of the deposit was regularly deposited as the security deposit for the regular member of the Rayman club, and this amount is returned at the same time after five years from the date of commencement of membership, upon request for return from the holder of the certificate, at the time of request from the holder of the certificate.”

B. Regarding the security deposit for admission and the procedures for withdrawal, the rules of the Rayjart club (hereinafter “instant rules”) stipulate that the membership security deposit and the procedures are as follows:

(1) The membership fee shall be paid to the company for five years as a membership deposit, and the principal shall be refunded upon the deliberation of the operating committee and the approval of the board of directors at the request of the member. In addition, the principal shall be refunded even when expelled from the member. Provided, That in the event of force majeure such as natural disasters, the return may be suspended for a certain period of time (Article 7(1)).

(2) In principle, a member for whom five years have passed after the deposit of a membership fee shall be automatically extended if no request for withdrawal is made (Article VII(2)).

(3) If a party wishes to withdraw from a meeting, he must submit a prescribed application and obtain the approval of the company (Article 16(1)).

(4) A member shall not, without the approval of the company, demand a withdrawal within a grace period of Article 7 from the date of entry, and shall be considered to have been automatically renewed unless the withdrawal request is made after the lapse of five years (Article 16(2)).

C. Around January 18, 2007, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant not to renew the qualification for membership. Accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the refund of the above security deposit by February 8, 2007, which is the day following the expiration date of the grace period.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the security deposit and damages for delay after the expiration of the grace period of five (5) years for the security deposit deposited to the defendant, upon the plaintiff's request for the return of the security deposit and the damages for delay after the expiration of the grace period of the plaintiff's request for the return of the security deposit, the defendant asserted that the contract was automatically extended since the plaintiff submitted an application under Article 16 (1) of the Rules of the Association of this case for the withdrawal of the plaintiff and failed to obtain the defendant's approval. In addition, since the defendant's board of directors decided to postpone

(b) Markets:

The legal relationship on the operation of a golf club operated with a deposit-based membership system to deposit a certain amount at the time of membership and receive a refund thereof is the contractual rights and obligations of the company operating the golf club. The rules on its operation are established by the company operating the golf club in order to apply uniformly to many unspecified visitors, and thus constitutes the contents of the contractual rights and obligations under the contract with the members who intend to approve it and join the golf club. Among them, the provisions on the rights and obligations of the parties, such as the procedure for withdrawing the membership qualification, are deemed to have the nature of the terms and conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da20714, Apr. 9, 199). Thus, the rules of this case should be deemed to have the contractual rights and obligations between the plaintiff and the defendant as a member.

According to the contents of the bylaws of this case, there is room for interpreting that the security deposit may be refunded only after the lapse of five (5) years after the entry with the approval of the Defendant’s board of directors. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant received the security deposit from the Plaintiff and issued the certificate of the security deposit to the Plaintiff stating that “if there is a request for the return from the holder of the certificate after the expiration of five (5) years, the said certificate shall be refunded simultaneously with the withdrawal of the said certificate.” The above contents are an individual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant taking precedence over the instant rules. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff requesting the return after the lapse of five (5) years in accordance with the above agreement, regardless of whether the said agreement

In addition, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s ground of managerial difficulties, which the Defendant claims, falls under “vis-vis situation, such as natural disaster,” as stipulated in the proviso of Article 7(1) of the Rules of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed damages for delay after February 8, 2007, which is the day following the expiration date of the grace period. However, according to the above facts, the defendant's obligation to return the deposit is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the plaintiff's obligation to return the certificate of membership guarantee. Since there is no assertion or proof as to the plaintiff's obligation to return the above certificate to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot be held liable for delay of the obligation to return the deposit to the defendant, and therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Go Young-soo (Presiding Judge)