The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Supreme Court Decision 2013Da64984 Decided January 29, 2015 rendered the following judgments.

Although the Defendant’s duty to return the Plaintiff’s membership fee and the Plaintiff’s duty to return the Plaintiff’s membership fee, which is operated with the deposit membership system, are in a simultaneous performance relationship, the Defendant’s refusal of the return of the membership fee on the ground that the Plaintiff’s membership fee does not have to be returned, the purpose is to protect the Defendant from the risk of double payment. Thus, the Defendant’s right to claim the Plaintiff’s membership fee and the Defendant’s right to claim the refund of the Plaintiff’s membership fee are not in a bilateral contract obligation under Article 536 of the Civil Act

Therefore, each of the above obligations is in the relationship of simultaneous performance.

Even if the membership card is not returned, it means that the defendant can refuse the payment of the membership fee if it is not returned, and therefore, the defendant has the right to refuse the return of the membership fee on the ground that there is no return of the membership card, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant does not have a legitimate demand for performance unless the plaintiff provides the membership card. Thus, the defendant is liable for delay of performance from the time when he received a request for return of the membership fee from the plaintiff.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning and determined as follows.

Unless there exist special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay on September 28, 2010 to the Plaintiff from September 27, 201 to April 14, 201, which is the day following the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of membership fees, by claiming the return of the membership fees on September 27, 2010, and the Defendant returned the said membership fees to the Plaintiff only after April 14, 201.

B. However, the golf membership agreement is common to the members at the time of entry.