logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.04.29 2015가단55945
입회금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,800,000 as well as 6% per annum from April 22, 2013 to April 29, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on July 12, 2002 as a member of the Ri of the Defendant’s operation and acquired the membership on the date of full payment of the membership deposit, held the membership for ten years thereafter, and the Defendant agreed to refund the security deposit to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s request for return at the expiration of the membership period (hereinafter “instant membership agreement”); the Plaintiff paid the entire security deposit to the Defendant by April 21, 2003; the Plaintiff applied for the withdrawal of the membership to the Defendant on March 21, 2013; and the Plaintiff may be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the absence of dispute between the parties, or the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 5, and subparagraph 1, as such, the instant membership agreement was terminated on April 21, 2013.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,781,80 of the membership deposit and delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated by the Commercial Act from April 22, 2013, which is the day following the date of return of the membership deposit, until April 29, 2016, which is the date of this decision, to the date of the decision that the Defendant dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from March 21, 2013, the filing date of the withdrawal request. However, as seen earlier, the expiration date of the instant membership agreement was April 21, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow