logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.08.22 2018가단102501
입회금반환
Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 100,000; KRW 23,00,000; KRW 28,000; and KRW 28,00,000 for the Plaintiff C and D, respectively.

Reasons

As between the Defendant and the Defendant, Plaintiff A entered into a membership agreement with each of the contents that Plaintiff A entered into as a member of the Defendant’s golf course with the admission fee of KRW 128,00,000 on December 3, 2010, the admission period of KRW 7 years, and the time limit for return of the admission fee of KRW 128,00,000, and the time limit for return of the admission fee of KRW 7 years (after the expiration of the admission period) and the time limit for return of the admission fee of KRW 128,00,00,000 for each of the above time, and the remainder of the Plaintiffs did not disclose to the Defendant after the expiration of each of the subscription period and do not dispute the Defendant’s return of the admission fee of KRW 150 on October 22, 2010.

It may also be recognized by the entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including paper numbers).

On the other hand, the fact that the plaintiff A received the return of KRW 28 million from the defendant as part of the membership fee, KRW 15 million from the plaintiff B, and KRW 10 million from the defendant to the plaintiff C and D is the plaintiffs.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,00 to the Plaintiff as the remainder of the membership fee following the expiration of each of the above subscription agreements (=128,000,000-28,000,000), and KRW 23,00,000 to the Plaintiff B (=38,000,000-15,000,000), and KRW 28,00,000 to the Plaintiff C and D respectively (=38,000,000-10,000-10,000,000) and each of the above amounts as claimed by the Plaintiffs, as calculated by the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Facilitation, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 3, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is with merit, and it is decided to accept it.

arrow