1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 178,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 20, 2016 to February 7, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 18, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 178,000,000 to the Defendant, and joined the Defendant’s rash-based agreement club operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant club”) as a member, and acquired one golf membership B (member number).

B. The Defendant agreed to return to the Plaintiff at the request of the members five years after the date of the above entry.

C. On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the membership fee in advance on November 19, 2016, five years after the date of entry.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. According to the facts found as follows: (a) the Plaintiff joined the Defendant’s club on November 18, 201; (b) on September 16, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed the return of the membership fee to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant is obligated to return the said membership fee of KRW 178,00,000 on November 19, 2016, when five years have elapsed since the date of entry to the Plaintiff.

I would like to say.

3. The defendant's argument that the defendant's other members of the defendant's club also demand the return of the membership fee, and thus, the defendant's argument that the return should be postponed for a considerable period of time, but the defendant's argument is not a legal ground for suspending the return. Thus, the defendant's argument

4. If so, the defendant is obligated to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform from November 20, 201, the day following the lapse of five years from November 18, 201, when the pertinent membership fee of KRW 178,00,00,00 as well as the membership fee of KRW 178,00,00,00, to the plaintiff, until February 7, 2017, the date when the pertinent judgment was rendered, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date when the obligation is fully paid. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the performance is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder