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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the ground of the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1, based on the facts acknowledged in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to nonperformance from January 18, 2007 to April 1, 2013, which was sought by the Plaintiff, since the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s membership status and did not comply with the Plaintiff’s transfer request by denying the Plaintiff’s preferential use of the golf club facilities until the instant lawsuit was brought against the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of liability for damages.

2. (1) With respect to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court concluded that the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is different from the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003) in the lawsuit where an individual or company in the same status as the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of membership on the instant golf club, and that “the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedures on the membership roll to the Plaintiff,” which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court Decision 2007Da45807 Decided July 9, 2009, and that there was no intention or negligence on the part of the Defendant until the judgment of the instant lawsuit became final and conclusive.