The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

The term "recurring transaction" prescribed by the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Door-to-Door Sales Act") means a transaction with an agreement on the restriction on the refund of proceeds or the penalty if the contract for the provision of goods, etc. is terminated in the middle of one month or more continuously or on an irregular basis (Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the same Act), and a consumer who has entered into a contract for recurring transactions, etc. with a continuous transaction business operator, etc. may terminate the contract at any time during the contract period,

(Article 31 of the same Act). (b)

The judgment below

In light of the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that the instant contract was lawfully terminated as follows: (a) the main content of the golf membership use agreement concluded between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) reached the Plaintiff on March 19, 2014, on the ground that, upon the Defendant’s application to use the golf course, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership or purchased membership, the period of use is five years; and (b) the instant contract constitutes a recurring transaction as prescribed by the Door-to-Door Sales Act; and (c) the instant contract constitutes a recurring transaction as prescribed by the Door-to-Door Sales Act, and therefore, (d) the Defendant was presumed to be able to terminate the instant contract at any time during the contract term; and (e) the written brief dated March 11, 2014, stating the Defendant’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant contract, reached the Plaintiff on March

(hereinafter referred to as “instant termination”) c.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.