1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating a golf course (hereinafter “instant golf course”) with the trade name, “Pamanacium” from 145-10 (Post-dong) in the south-si, Chuncheon-ro.

On June 19, 2015, June 26, 2015, the date of the return of the name of the member (applicant) on the date of the order for correction order, B of July 17, 2015, and C of the Republic of Korea Cargon Co., Ltd.

In accordance with Article 30 subparag. 4 and Article 18 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “the Installation and Utilization Act”) and Article 19 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Defendant issued a corrective order against the Plaintiff on two occasions as follows (hereinafter “each of the instant corrective orders”) but the Plaintiff did not comply with each of the instant corrective orders.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant on August 31, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated each of the instant corrective orders by the Defendant, Article 32(2)6 of the Act, Article 27(2) [Attachment Table 7] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act

2.(a)

(5) (D) Pursuant to subparagraph (3), the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of business suspension three days (from September 1, 2015 to September 3, 2015) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 15, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful in the following point.

1) The existence of the reason for exemption exists: ① (a) the company’s management normalization through negotiations with the Emergency Countermeasure Committee consisting of a large number of members whose time the Plaintiff returned membership fees; and (b) the proposal was prepared to enable all members to receive equal membership fees; (c) 114 out of total 137 regular members (as of August 2015, approximately 83% agreed to this agreement; and (c) the Plaintiff returned 5% of the membership fees to the members consenting to the agreement up to May 2015.