The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

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

1. The interpretation of a standardized contract shall be interpreted fairly and reasonably in light of the purpose and purpose of the standardized contract in good faith, and it shall be objectively and objectively interpreted on the basis of average customer’s understanding potential without considering the intended purpose or intent of the individual contracting party. Even after such interpretation, if the meaning of the standardized contract is not clear or doubtful, such as objectively and objectively interpreting the standardized contract terms, it shall be interpreted disadvantageous to the customer in favor of the preparing of the standardized contract.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35226, Oct. 28, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5120, Sept. 9, 2010). Such a legal doctrine applies likewise to a case where the rules prepared by a company constitute a contractual terms and conditions between a member and a company.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

(1) On June 30, 1982, the Defendant had been operating a D hotel located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant hotel”) with the trade name “D hotel friendship or & health club” (hereinafter “instant existing club”).

(2) The Plaintiffs paid deposits, admission fees, and annual fees between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant entered into a contract to provide services to use the instant existing club (hereinafter “instant use contract”) in return, and have used the facilities of the instant club by paying annual annual fees after paying deposits, admission fees, or paying certain fees to the Defendant, and acquiring the status of the existing members.

(b).