In a case where Gap corporation operating a golf course claims withdrawal, etc. from its membership pursuant to Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act on the grounds that it was difficult to doing at the weekend of Eul corporation as a general member by recruiting preferential and preferential regular members and guaranteeing them to do so, the case affirming the judgment below which held that such alteration of circumstance was sufficiently foreseeable at the time of the membership agreement and constitutes a degree that can be accepted by social norms.

Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act

EF&N Credit Information Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Lee Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gyeonggi Tourism Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorney Park Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na73051 decided October 10, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 4

(1) The lower court determined that the exercise of membership right is exceptionally restricted in cases where the agreement on the rights and interests of members is modified, as well as where the stipulation on the rights and interests of members is modified in light of the language and text of Article 19 Subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, which provides for the grounds for the withdrawal of an existing member from membership, and even if the text and text of the agreement have not been modified, the agreement on the rights and interests of members is substantially modified due to changes in the circumstances pertaining to the rights and interests of members. However, in full view of the circumstances at the time of membership subscription, the developments and necessity of the amendment of the agreement on the rights and interests of members, the contents of the modified agreement, and its impact on the rights and interests of members, etc., the modification of the agreement on the rights and interests of

In light of the contents and purport of relevant statutes, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by erroneous interpretation of Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act.

(2) In full view of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of withdrawal pursuant to the above provision on the ground that such change in circumstances was sufficiently foreseeable at the time of the instant membership agreement, and it constitutes a degree acceptable by social norms, even though it is difficult for the Plaintiff, a general member, to do so as to ensure that the Defendant recruited preferential, regular, and general members and offered preferential membership at around November 2007 and May 2008, thereby guaranteeing them to do so.

Examining the record, the reasoning of the judgment below reveals that the Plaintiff’s recovery from the end of the week in 2010 was erroneous not once but twice. However, in light of the remaining circumstances decided by the court below, even in light of the following circumstances, even if the Defendant: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to recruit preferential and preferential regular members and guarantee them to do so, thereby making it difficult to do so; and (b) it constitutes the extent that it could have been sufficiently predicted at the time of the instant membership agreement, and thus, constitutes a matter of social norms and acceptable. In so doing, the court below’s determination that the Defendant did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 2 and other grounds of appeal

(1) Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the ordinary members and regular members should be distinguished in interpreting the unique contents of the general members stipulated in the instant membership agreement; and (b) the Plaintiff, a general member, cannot be deemed to be guaranteed to the Plaintiff as a regular member in the same manner as regular members.

Examining the record, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law of logic and experience beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

(2) Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined to the effect that, insofar as it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff, a general member, has the same drinking manner as regular members, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had a default solely on the remaining grounds alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot rescind the contract due to such reasons, and further, it is difficult to recognize the cancellation of contract

Upon examining the record, the court below is just to recognize the defendant's default and the plaintiff's right to cancel the contract, and there is no violation of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or disclosing the reasons

3. Conclusion

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.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)