[1] The legal nature of the rules of the golf club established with respect to the operation of the golf club operated as a deposit membership system, and whether the binding force of the rules can be ruled out on the grounds that the parties did not know the contents of the rules of the golf club (negative)

[2] The case holding that where a golf club operated with a deposit membership system has a provision on the restriction on transfer of membership to an overseas member, such provision shall not be deemed null and void against the constitutional equality provision, social order provision under the Civil Act, or good faith and good faith

[1] The legal relationship on the operation of a golf club operated with the deposit membership system, in which a certain amount is deposited at the time of membership and the deposit is returned when the membership is withdrawn, is the contractual rights and obligations between the members and the company operating the golf club. Therefore, the rules on its operation were established by the company operating the golf club to apply it uniformly to many unspecified visitors. Thus, the rules on its operation constituted the contents of contractual rights and obligations between the members and the company which approved it and intend to join the golf club. Among them, the provisions on the rights and obligations of the parties such as the transfer and acquisition procedure of membership have the nature of the terms and conditions. Thus, the binding force cannot be ruled out unless the parties to the contract clearly provide otherwise.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a golf club operated with a deposit membership system provides for the restriction on the transfer of membership by prescribing that the qualification of a foreign member may be transferred or acquired only to a foreign resident, the contents of the golf club's rules related to the operation of the golf club can be freely determined according to the golf club's operator's will, unless they violate the mandatory law or the public order and good customs, and the golf club membership does not recognize the status of a member as a matter of law due to the special nature of the golf club's use contract which maintains a continuous relationship between a member and a golf club operator, and as long as a membership contract was concluded with a foreign member with a different unfavorable condition, the provisions on the restriction on the transfer of a golf club's rules are excessively unfavorable compared to a foreign member without any reasonable ground on the ground that it is a foreign resident's status, it cannot be deemed that the provisions on the restriction on transfer of a golf club's rules are null and void in violation of the constitutional equality provisions, the provisions on social order provisions under the Civil Act

[1] Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Article 11(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 2 and 103 of the Civil Act; Article 6 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2543 delivered on Nov. 26, 1985 (Gong1986, 108), Supreme Court Decision 89Meu24070 delivered on Apr. 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1141), Supreme Court Decision 91Da20432 delivered on Sept. 10, 199 (Gong191, 2527)

Plaintiff

The supplementary intervenor (Attorney Yang-hee et al., Counsel for the supplementary intervenor)

Busan Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 97Na8022 delivered on April 10, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant established a golf course at around May 197 at the time of Busan Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) and organized Daegu-gu Ordinance for the operation and management of the golf course, the defendant is divided into special members, honorary members, treatment members, corporate members, and overseas members with the approval of the company after obtaining the approval of the company as overseas residents, and the provisions on the restriction on transfer of membership rights are stipulated in the old-gu Ordinance on the transfer of membership rights by stipulating that the transfer of membership rights can only be transferred and acquired by overseas residents, and the supplementary intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the supplementary intervenor) did not obtain the approval of the transfer of membership rights from the new 3rd-gu Ordinance on the ground that the transfer of membership rights by the new 3rd-gu Ordinance on the transfer of membership rights by the new 3rd-gu Ordinance on the ground that the transfer of membership rights by the new 3rd-gu Ordinance on the transfer of membership rights by the new 197. The defendant already stated that the transfer of membership rights by the new 3rd-gu Ordinance on the transfer of membership rights should be issued separately to the defendant.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is just and acceptable. According to its factual basis, the defendant company's agreement and agreement-making is operated as a so-called deposit-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement-based agreement.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that even if the supplementary intervenor did not know the contents of the rules at the time of joining the Daegu consortium operated by the defendant company, the provisions of the rules shall be the contents of the contractual rights and obligations between the members and the defendant company, and it shall not be deemed that there was an error of law in the incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the contents of the rules of a golf course management division related to the operation of a golf course can be freely determined according to the intention of the golf course operator unless they violate the mandatory rules or the public order and good customs, and that the membership of a golf course is not legally negotiable due to the unique characteristics of the service contract maintained in a continuous relationship between the members and the golf course operator, and that the status of the members is not recognized as a matter of course, and that in the case of a foreign member, the status of the member has any unfavorable condition with a national, but the membership contract was concluded on such condition, as long as the provisions on the restriction of transfer among the rules of the member of the member of the member association are excessively unfavorable compared to the domestic member without any reasonable ground on the ground that he is a foreign resident.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the principles of protection of Korean nationals residing abroad, the principle of equality, or the principles of legal act against social order under the Civil Act.

3. All of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)