1. Attached Table 1 of the Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Coup Global Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 17, 2014

1. The plaintiffs' obligations to pay their respective additional deposits or annual fees to the defendant, and the plaintiffs, as the regular members listed in the membership type column in the plaintiff's list as shown in attached Form 1, confirm that they do not have any additional deposits exceeding KRW 42,561,103 or annual fees exceeding KRW 1,064,027, or KRW 21,280,551 or annual fees exceeding KRW 532,013, respectively.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

It is confirmed that there is no obligation of the Plaintiffs to pay KRW 47,750,000 or annual fee of KRW 1,910,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant does not prevent or prohibit the Plaintiffs from using all of the sports facilities listed in the separate sheet No. 2, on the ground that each of the above additional security deposit or annual fee does not meet the obligation of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs should not interfere with or prohibit the Plaintiffs from using the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s parking facility as a free use, and if the Plaintiffs disposes of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s special membership to a third party, etc., the implementation of the transfer process should not be refused.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 8, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, non-party 3's testimony, plaintiff 281's result of the party's personal examination.

A. From around May 1985, the Defendant operates the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Comprehensive Sports Center (hereinafter “○○○○ Sex”) with the trade name “○○○○” (hereinafter “Sex”). The Plaintiffs are members of Esex’s special members (the distinction between regular members, family members, and regular members and family members is as shown in the Plaintiff’s list as shown in the Plaintiff’s list as shown in attached Table 1; hereinafter the Plaintiffs as family members of Esex’s family type as indicated in the Plaintiff’s list, and the Plaintiff as family members of Esex’s family type as indicated in the same list, when entering into a special membership agreement with the Defendant around or after the opening of Ssex, or after the opening of Ssex, or between the Defendant and the Defendant.

B. At the time of the sale of membership rights by the Defendant opening the directorship around 1985, the membership fees and annual fees are as follows:

A member of the first family member who does not have any special membership fee of KRW 1,430,00 in aggregate of the subscription fees for the tickets included in the main sentence of this Article and has no KRW 4,610,00 in 3,180,000 in 4,610,000 in 715,590,000 in 2,305,000 in 1,280,2800 in 1,280,000 in 2,160,000 in 360,000 in 440,000 in 1,000 in 1,00 in 640,000 in 1,080,000 in 180,000 in 1,000 in 1,000 in 1,000 in

C. Around July 201 and August 2011, the Defendant conducted a public hearing for the members of Sexex, and performed the remodeling of the main building of Sex. Around January 2012 and around February 2012, the said remodeling work was completed, the Defendant notified that the deposit will be additionally imposed on Sex special members due to changes in all economic conditions, such as the implementation of the said remodeling work and the inflation of prices, by holding two public hearings on special members including the Plaintiffs.

D. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant increased the annual fee of regular members from 2,364,00 to 2,860,000 won from 2,860 won from 2,800 won from 2,860,000 won from 2,364,000 to 2,860,000 won from 2,000 won from 2,360 won from 2,860 won from 2,000 members from 2,00 won from 2,000 members from 1,91,000 won from 1,750,000 won from 2,000 won from 2,000 won from 2,000 won from 3,000 won from 2,000 won from 2,000 won from 2,000 won from 3,000 won from 2,000 won from 2,000 won from 20.7.

E. On September 26, 2012 and October 2, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced that the charge of 1.5% per month will be imposed on special members who did not pay additional membership fees and that they will restrict the free use of the Swiss parking lot.

F. The rules of Ssch Rexroth regarding the instant case (hereinafter “instant rules”) are as follows:

Article 17 (Change and Adjustment of Membership Fees) Various membership fees may be adjusted in consideration of the increase of public charges, price and other economic conditions: Provided, That with respect to the membership fees already paid, their rights shall be recognized.

Article 20 (Entry into Force) This Rule shall enter into force from November 20, 1984.

2. Determination on the part of the plaintiffs' claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs do not bear any obligation to pay additional deposits or annual fees on the following grounds, since they are not able to demand the plaintiffs to pay additional deposits or annual fees.

① The instant rule is a pre-amended rule that was enforced before November 15, 1999, or that was voluntarily made by the Defendant to cope with the Defendant’s lawsuit, and the rules that were amended by the Defendant’s Steering Committee around October 24, 199 and implemented from November 15, 199, do not include the same content as the provisions of Article 17.

(2) Even if the instant rules are lawful rules, the term “all kinds of membership fees” under Article 17 of the instant rules means annual fees, etc., and any deposit paid by special members does not constitute such deposit.

③ Article 17 of the Rules of this case is a standardized contract, and the defendant did not inform, explain, or explain the above provisions at the time of concluding a special membership agreement with the plaintiffs. Thus, the above provisions cannot be a content of the subscription agreement in violation of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contracts Regulation Act”).

④ Article 17 of the Rules of the instant case provides the Defendant with the authority to unilaterally change the content of performance with respect to the performance of the obligation without reasonable grounds, and is unfairly unfavorable to the customer and difficult for the customer to anticipate, and thus, is null and void in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions or the principle of good faith.

⑤ The Plaintiffs entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant on the membership of a lifelong member without any lifelong additional deposit or annual fee, and the Defendant’s payment of additional deposit or annual fee to the Plaintiffs is illegal and unjust because it is a significant change in the content of the Defendant’s payment of the obligation under the above agreement, which resulted in a substantial change in the Defendant’s payment of the obligation.

2) In addition, the plaintiffs asserts that even if the defendant can claim additional deposits or annual fees against the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of the present case, the amount notified by the defendant cannot be excessively excessive for the following reasons.

① Ssch Rexroth’s building and installation problems due to safety and equipment problems due to the aging of the building and facilities, and Racker Replacement Corporation is a normal construction that the Defendant who operates the sports facilities has to make it mandatory. The costs for the remodelling construction and installation construction of the main building and facilities shall be covered by the Defendant’s new members and annual members’ raising funds. If any part is to be borne by the special members, the company shall appropriate the deposits received from the special members for the profit portion of the deposits. Thus, the Plaintiffs cannot be required to make an additional deposit.

(2) The total building area or sports facilities area has not been increased by the remodelling work of the director.

③ Additional annual fees of KRW 1,910,000 for the Plaintiffs as requested by the Defendant are calculated on the basis of the amount calculated after the annual fees of ordinary members have been excessively increased.

④ From around 2012, the officially announced price of the Sex site increased by approximately 69 times compared to around 1985, which was the time when Sexex was opened. The current monetary value of the Plaintiffs’ deposits of KRW 3,180,00 to KRW 1,90,000, which was paid by the Plaintiffs in 19,420 to KRW 131,10,000,000 multiplied by 69, respectively. As such, the Plaintiffs already paid the deposit amount exceeding 47,750,000 won.

B. Determination

1) Whether there exists grounds for the demand for additional deposit or annual fee payment

(A) We examine the plaintiffs' assertion 1)

The above facts and Gap evidence No. 67, Eul evidence No. 20, and No. 21 are as follows. i.e., defendant's resolution to amend the rules and regulations at each of the meetings of the management advisory committees dated October 25, 199 and December 17, 199 (the plaintiff alleged that the minutes were forged on October 25, 199 of No. 67, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the rules of this case were amended immediately, even if the above minutes were forged). The plaintiff did not have any other evidence to amend the rules of No. 71 as to the amendment of the Rules of No. 9, which is not the ground for the amendment of the Rules of No. 71, No. 9, which is the defendant's amendment of the Rules of No. 1, No. 7, and No. 9, which is the defendant's amendment of the Rules of No.

(B) We examine the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) and (2).

A membership sports facility use agreement provides services to enable members to use various sports facilities by inviting multiple members, and its members pay the fees for such services. In addition to security deposits and subscription fees paid by members to the entity of the sports facilities at the time of concluding a contract, the annual fee paid according to the contract can be deemed as the price for the use of the facilities under the above contract (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da35098 delivered on February 27, 1996).

In the case of this case, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as seen above, the bylaws of this case provide that membership fees shall be divided into membership fees (admission fees and membership deposits) and annual fees (Article 9 through 10), and Article 11 provides that members of Swiftships shall pay membership fees in installments, and the proviso of the same Article provides that membership fees shall be appropriated first for membership fees, and Article 1 of the Rules of Bosch Rexroth provides that membership fees shall be appropriated first for membership fees. Article 1 of the Rules provides that membership fees shall refer to the membership fees; and Article 1 of the Rules of Bosch Rexroth provides that membership fees shall also refer to the membership fees, deposits, and annual fees under the item of "member fees". In full view of each of the above provisions, it is reasonable to view that the "Various membership fees" of Article 17 of the Rules of this case refers to both the membership fees and annual fees paid by members to the defendant in return for the use of facilities under the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

(C) We examine the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) and (3).

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 17-3 and No. 4 of the evidence No. 17-2, the plaintiffs, a special member, stated that "I, upon entering into a membership agreement with the defendant, apply for membership" on the signature column of the written application for membership admission written by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs can recognize the fact that they have signed in the signature column (On the other hand, the records of this case did not submit the written application for membership admission to some plaintiffs, but there is no dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the facts that all the plaintiffs are special members or family members as Ssch Rexroths' regular members or family members). The results of the personal examination conducted by the plaintiff 281 of the parties alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs could not hear any explanation about Article 17 of the Rules of this case at the time of the membership of Ssch Rex, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(D) We examine the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) and (4).

Article 17 of the Rules of the Association of this case provides that "Various membership fees may be adjusted in consideration of the increase of public charges, price and other economic conditions, etc." The above provisions alone do not constitute a provision which is unreasonably unfavorable and difficult to expect to customers, or a provision which grants the defendant the right to unilaterally change the contents of payment without reasonable grounds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(E) We examine the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) and (5).

As seen earlier, the Defendant used the term “special member” from the opening date of 1985. The result of the Defendant’s personal examination by Plaintiff 281 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant on the content of a lifelong free member without any additional annual fee, or that Nonparty 5, the Defendant’s chairperson at the time of the opening of the representative director, agreed to treat the Plaintiffs as a lifelong free member. Since there is no other evidence to support this, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s payment of additional deposit or annual fee to the Plaintiffs is a significant change in the content of the benefits arising from the Defendant’s substantial change in the content of the payment of the Defendant’s obligation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on

Ultimately, pursuant to Article 17 of the Assembly Rule of this case, the defendant can demand the additional payment of the deposit or the payment of annual fee to the plaintiffs who are special members.

2)Calculation of reasonable additional deposits or annual fees;

(A) Improperness of the Defendant’s calculation method

If the regulations stipulate that the facility owner of a health club can arbitrarily adjust the annual fee, which is the price for the use of the club facilities, by taking into account public charges, price increases, and other economic factors, the right to determine whether to increase the annual fee and the scope of the increase thereof may be entrusted to the facility owner. However, it cannot be interpreted that the facility owner has the authority to arbitrarily determine the annual fee without any reasonable ground. Rather, as the facility owner who entered into a contract for the use of the facility with a large number of members, it shall be deemed that the annual fee increase and the scope of increase can be determined only within an objective reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da35098 delivered on February 27, 1996).

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s imposition of additional deposit amount of KRW 42,561,103 or annual fee of KRW 1,064,027 or annual fee of KRW 21,280,51 or annual fee of KRW 532,01 or annual fee of KRW 47,750,000 or annual fee of KRW 1,910,000 in excess of the aforementioned amount is excessive beyond the objective reasonable scope, and thus, it is unreasonable to deem that the Defendant’s imposition of additional deposit of KRW 47,750,00 or annual fee of KRW 47,910 or annual fee of KRW 1,910,00 exceeds the objective reasonable scope.

In other words, the defendant's special members are 3,180,00 won on the basis of regular members; 1,280,000 won for ordinary members; 360,000 won for annual fees; 318,000 won per annum (= 3,180,000 x 0.1) for general members; 48,000 won per annum [1,28,000 x 060 won per annum (1,260,000 x 360,000) for general members; 160,000 won per annum calculated on the basis of 1985; 20,000 won per annum; 360,000 won per annum; 360,000 won per annum; 20,000 won per annum (i.e., 318,000 won) for general members; 20,000 won per annum calculated on the basis of 196,2010

(b) Calculation of reasonable deposits and annual fees;

Even if economic conditions such as price increase compared to the above 1985 change, the defendant cannot demand the plaintiffs to pay an amount in excess of the current value of special rights of Sex as of the date of closing the argument of this case. Meanwhile, pursuant to the proviso of Article 17 of the meeting of this case, the rights of 4,610,00 won as membership fees from special members as of 1985 shall be recognized. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant can require the defendant to additionally pay the remainder after deducting the above 4,610,00 won from the current value of special members of Ssch Rexroth rights from the current monetary value of the current 4,610,000 won from the current 00 won [The plaintiffs can be recognized as not specifying the time and amount of entry into a special member contract between the defendant and the defendant, the time and amount of entry into a special member contract of 08,000 won from the above 106,000 won which are not directly concluded with the defendant 16,085, etc.

At this time, the conversion criteria of the Bank of Korea, which seems to well reflect the fluctuation in the price level of the entire economy, shall be used, and the current monetary value at the present time shall be determined by the "amount paid 】 at the present point of time ± GDPR 】 at the present point of time ± GaP d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d. at the time of payment. On the other hand, the number of the Bank of Korea d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

The fact that the plaintiffs, a regular member, paid 4,610,00 won to the defendant when entering into a special member subscription contract in around 1985 between the defendant and the defendant is as seen above. (The plaintiffs claim that some of the plaintiffs paid 4,610,000 won to the defendant more than the above 4,610,000 won, but it is insufficient to view that the entries of Gap evidence No. 76 through No. 78 have directly paid the defendant the amount exceeding the above 4,610,000 won, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, the above plaintiffs paid the transfer price to each transferor after receiving special member's special member's transfer from the defendant after the 1985, and there is no amount of the purchase price paid to the defendant. (The above plaintiffs are deemed to have no amount of the purchase price paid to the defendant). When calculating the current monetary value of the plaintiffs' subscription price of 4,610,000 won to the 4,610,000 won.

Furthermore, according to the appraiser non-party 4's appraisal results, since the special right (based on regular members) of Sex as of October 10, 2013, which is close to the date of the closing of argument in this case, is worth 56,500,000 won, from the value of the above special right, 42,561,103 won (=56,500,000 - 13,938,897 won) is the amount equivalent to the deposit that the plaintiffs are obligated to pay additionally, from the value of the above special right.

The defendant, taking into account special members who are difficult to pay additional deposits once, made it possible to pay them in installments with the annual fee applying the base interest rate to the deposit, and such measures are objectively reasonable. If the above additional deposits are applied to KRW 42,561,103, which is 2.50% (which is the basis interest rate for the year 2014 as determined by the Bank of Korea as of the date of closing argument of this case, the annual fee to be paid by the plaintiffs who are regular members (=42,561,103 x 0.025).

Furthermore, as seen earlier, the fact that at the time of 1985, the regular member paid 50% of the membership fee and deposit that the regular member paid by the regular member is to calculate the amount equivalent to 50% of the additional deposit that the plaintiffs who are regular members pay (in this case, all the plaintiffs and the special members of the defendant have asserted only as regular members, and there are no materials to know the assessed amount of the additional deposit of the regular member as of the date of closing the argument in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to determine the increased amount within the objective reasonable scope of the additional deposit of the special members who are family members). Accordingly, in the case of the additional deposit, the amount that the plaintiffs who are family members are liable to pay is 21,280,51 won (i.e., 42,561, 103 won x 0.5), 532,013 won (i.e., the rate of additional deposit 21, 2015 won x 2515).

(C) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant should bear the costs of remodeling construction on their own or be appropriated for the funds raised from new ordinary members and one-year annual members. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has the same obligation, and the above assertion is without merit.

(2) The plaintiffs asserted that the amount of security deposit cannot be raised as claimed by the defendant because the size of sports facilities has not increased through remodeling work. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence No. 7 through No. 11, the plaintiffs' assertion that the amount of security deposit cannot be raised as claimed by the defendant. However, it can be recognized that the size of 781.92 square meters of the area has increased due to the conversion of the farmland-gu, which was not a member facility in the existing facilities through remodeling work into a physical training place, as a whole, due to the conversion of the farmland-gu, which was not a member facility through remodeling work into a physical training place. In addition, as long as security deposit has

(3) The plaintiffs claim that the value of the deposit for special membership has increased 69 times compared to that of around 1985. However, since the officially announced value of the bond for special membership has increased 69 times compared to that of the Sex's site around 1985, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs have increased 69 times the value of the deposit paid by the plaintiffs as well as 69 times the value of the bond. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

(4) Some plaintiffs claim that the amount should be taken into account since they paid approximately KRW 10 million to KRW 20 million from around 2002 to around 201 and acquired special membership rights. However, the difference between the amount paid KRW 4,610,000 to KRW 10,000 to KRW 20,000 to the transferor and the special member paid KRW 10,000 to the transferor when they acquired each membership rights after being paid special membership rights around 1985 and then transferred special membership rights after around 2002 is considered as reflecting the price fluctuations between around 1985 and the subsequent year, and in light of the same contents of the profits of membership rights, it is difficult to view that there was a change in the value of membership rights in itself. The above plaintiffs' payment to the transferor was not paid by the defendant (the above acquisition price is not set by the defendant). The plaintiffs' claim that all of the plaintiffs should not be equal to the above amount of additional deposit or annual membership rights.

(D) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiffs' additional deposit or annual fee payment obligations against the defendant shall not exceed 42,561,103 additional deposit, or annual fee 1,064,027, or annual fee 21,280,551, or annual fee 532,013, respectively, in the case of the plaintiffs who are regular members, and in the case of the plaintiffs who are family members, the additional deposit 21,280,551, or annual fee 532,013, as long as

3. Determination on the claim by the plaintiffs such as the prohibition of interference

The plaintiffs asserted that they shall not interfere with or prohibit the plaintiffs' use of sports facilities and free use of parking lots attached to Ssch Rexroth, and that they shall not refuse to implement transfer procedures following dispositions, such as transfer of special members' rights to third parties. However, as seen above, the plaintiffs are liable to pay additional deposits of KRW 42,561,103 or KRW 21,280,551 or additional deposits of KRW 1,064,027 or KRW 532,013, since they are liable to pay additional deposits or annual fees, it is difficult to deem that the defendant who did not pay such fees has the obligation to allow the plaintiffs to gratuitously use sports facilities for Ssch Rexroth and parking lots attached to Ssch Rexroth, or to pay for the implementation of transfer procedures following dispositions, such as transfer of special members' rights to third parties. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kang Tae-hun (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)