logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.05 2017가단5225629
입회금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 138,00,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from November 18, 2017 to June 5, 2018.

Reasons

1. In fact, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1-3.

The Defendant is a sports facility operator operating a golf course called “RaymanCC,” and the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant who obtained the qualification for regular membership of the said golf club on December 1, 2010 by filing an application for membership with the Defendant on December 1, 2010, and paying KRW 138 million for membership fees.

B. On November 7, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the membership fee upon the expiration of five years, which is the effective period of membership under the Rules of the Defendant Association, and the above content certification was served on the following day.

C. According to the defendant's rules, the return of the membership fee to a member whose term of existence of membership expires shall be returned within 10 days from the date the member requested the return of the membership fee upon expiration of the term of existence of the membership.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 138 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from November 18, 2017 to June 5, 2018, which is the date of the instant judgment, from the date following the date when the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s request for return of the Plaintiff’s membership fee, to the date when the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s request for return of the membership fee, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion,

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow