Attached Table 1. It is as shown in the Plaintiffs’ List (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Shin Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

more Bable S Development Co., Ltd. (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorney Choi Promotion-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 4, 2015

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap56384 Decided October 30, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

3. If a letter 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance is corrected by Appendix 2.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs confirm that the defendant is in the position of members of ○○○○ Hotel Mada and Health Club (hereinafter referred to as “instant club”) located in Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) operated by the defendant.

1. The reasoning for the statement in this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the statement is as stated in the column of 1 to 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition and modification as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

○ 8 pages 6 of the first instance judgment’s 8th amendment to the following: “It is reasonable to deem that the bylaws after the amendment were incorporated into the content of the instant use contract.”

○ 11 up to 5 pages of the same 11:

In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the closure of a facility due to the impossibility of performing the project as prescribed in Article 12 of the Regulations after the amendment means the permanent closure of the facility and does not constitute temporary closure as in this case. However, it is difficult to regard the temporary closure under the language of the above provision as excluding temporary closure, and the purport of the above provision itself is to resolve unavoidable circumstances, and thus it cannot be interpreted as the prohibition of resumption under the process of resolution. Accordingly, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and since the list of the plaintiffs in 21 of the judgment of first instance is obvious that some of the plaintiffs were omitted, it shall be corrected.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-seok (Presiding Judge) et al. and Park Young-young