[1] In accordance with Article 30(3) of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act which applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30(2) of the same Act, whether a person who acquired essential facilities through auction, etc. succeeds to the rights and obligations according to the approval without any separate cause such as transfer contract with the person authorized to approve the existing project plan (affirmative)

[2] Whether Article 30 (3) of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30 (2) and Article 30 (2) of the same Act and the supplementary provisions are in violation of the Constitution (negative)

[3] The meaning of "a person who has obtained approval for a business plan" under Article 19 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act and Article 18-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[1] Article 12 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003) does not provide for any provision as to whether a successful bidder succeeds to the approval of a project plan when acquiring essential facilities according to the facility standards for a sports facility business determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism through auction, etc., and interpreted that a successful bidder of essential facilities does not naturally succeed to the approval of a project plan, but succeeds to a transfer contract with the existing person authorized to approve a project plan, etc. Further, the purport of Article 30(3) of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003) which applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30(2) of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003) is that if a person who acquired essential facilities through auction, etc. without separate grounds such as concluding a transfer contract with the existing person authorized to approve the project plan.

[2] Article 30 (3) of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of Mar. 31, 2005) provides that successful bidders, etc. may succeed to the approval plan without entering into a transfer contract with the existing person authorized to approve project plans. While the existing person authorized to approve project plans loses an opportunity to acquire transfer proceeds through a transfer contract with the successful bidders, it is practically at an economic disadvantage. However, in light of the purport of the approval plan system for a person who intends to operate a registered sports facility business and the fact that the loss of such opportunity does not bring about an active change in property of the existing person authorized to approve project plans, it is difficult to deem that the above provision infringes on the existing person authorized to approve project plans or discriminates against other general creditors without reasonable grounds to protect the rights and interests of members and infringes on their property rights. In addition, comprehensively taking into account the above circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the appraisal cannot be conducted in consideration of the value of the sports facilities subject to the commencement of auction prior to the enforcement of the above provision, it does not violate Article 13(1) of the former Installation and Utilization Act.

[3] In full view of the provisions of Article 19 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of Mar. 31, 2005) and Article 18-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19686 of Sep. 22, 2006), a person who obtained approval of a business plan and who is entitled to recruit members means a person who is allowed to become a sports facility business entity by completing registration after completing the installation of the facilities in the future, and after completing registration after completing the installation of the facilities in the future, it is reasonable to interpret that an auction procedure, such as an auction, is not included in a person who loses ownership of the facilities while installing the facilities after obtaining approval of a business plan.

[1] Article 30 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003); Article 30 (see current Article 27) of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005) / [2] Article 30 (see current Article 27) of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005), Addenda (amended by Act No. 7428 of May 29, 2003) / [3] Article 19 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of March 31, 2005), Article 19 of the former Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1968 of September 28, 206)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10213 decided Oct. 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1949) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49836 decided Jun. 29, 2006

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na14887 decided May 1, 2001

New Mutual Savings Banks, Inc.

Do Governor of Chungcheongbuk-do

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Attorney Kang Byung-sil et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2005Guhap1881 Decided July 13, 2006

March 15, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition on September 9, 2004 on the admission of golf course members as of October 16, 2004, which was rendered by both parties to the lawsuit, shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Facts recognized and circumstances of dispositions;

A. On November 21, 1989, the Plaintiff (the trade name of the Plaintiff was changed in the order of the present trade name from the “Guangju-si Tourism Co., Ltd.” and the “Showon Consium”) obtained approval of the business plan under the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Act”) from the Defendant on November 21, 1989 to operate a golf course development project on the ground outside the 93 forest land, Dog-ri, Dog-si, and nine lots (hereinafter “instant site”). From around 190, the construction of the golf course (hereinafter “instant golf course”).

B. From April 20, 1992 to May 26, 1997, the Plaintiff recruited regular and ordinary members for 46,045,50,000 won out of 56,321,821,747 won. On July 19, 1997, the 7th membership recruitment plan approved by the Defendant was no longer available within that period. On October 28, 2000, the Plaintiff submitted the 8th membership recruitment plan to the Defendant (the recruitment period: from November 8, 2000 to September 30, 2001: 146 regular members: 70,000 won: 10,200,000 won: 10,000 won: 20,000 won, 170,000 won, 70,000 won, and 170,000 won were not available within that period.

C. Meanwhile, among the instant golf course sites, the compulsory auction procedure was conducted for the remainder of the instant golf course site and the building attached thereto, excluding 89-1 woodland 3,056 square meters in Doi-ri-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, which is a state-owned property, and the participant in the lawsuit (hereinafter “former trade name”) shall be detached, Co., Ltd. on December 1, 2003, after receiving the decision to permit the successful bid at the above auction procedure on July 1, 2004, the ownership was acquired by fully paying the successful bid price.

D. On September 8, 2004, after acquiring the ownership of the instant golf course site and its affiliated buildings, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for approval to revise a business plan with the content that the name of the instant golf course business plan shall be detached from the Plaintiff, and its representative shall be changed from gambling to gambing, and the Defendant filed an application for approval to revise a business plan with the content that the representative shall be changed from gambing to gambing. In accordance with Article 30(2) and (3) of the Sports Facilities Act, on September 9, 2004 (hereinafter “instant approval to revise the business plan”).

On October 14, 2004, it is also reasonable to see the Defendant’s membership recruitment plan (the recruitment period: from October 21, 2004 to October 21, 2005; the recruitment number: 199 persons; and the recruitment amount: 9.50 million won). On October 16, 2004, the Defendant approved the membership recruitment plan pursuant to the above plan (hereinafter “instant membership recruitment plan”).

E. However, prior to that, on the grounds of the agreement signed on June 24, 1997 between the Plaintiff, the Seoul Central District Court 2001Kahap10859, which filed against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2004, concluded a settlement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to issue and deliver membership rights pursuant to the approval of the membership recruitment plan as of November 7, 2000, and the Plaintiff issued and issued membership rights to the said company on the same day.

【Basis for Recognition】 (Ground for Recognition)

2. Determination on the main defense of the Defendant and the Intervenor’s appeal

A. First, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the approval of the change of the project plan of this case is just a repair disposition that can confirm the succession of rights and obligations under the project plan that naturally occurred under the law, and thus cannot be said to be a disposition.

However, according to Articles 10 through 12 of the Sports Facilities Act, a person who intends to run a golf club business, which is a registered sports facility business, shall obtain approval from the Mayor/Do Governor before installing the facilities of a golf club business, and even when he/she modifies the business plan, he/she shall obtain approval from the Mayor/Do Governor. The disposition to revise the business plan by an administrative agency is a so-called beneficial administrative act that gives rights or interests to the other party and is subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, this part

B. Next, the defendant and the defendant asserted that since the plaintiff lost physical facilities for the operation of the golf course business due to the winning of the instant golf course site to the sourgy, it is no longer possible to conduct the golf course development business or invite its members, the plaintiff has no interest in seeking the approval of the change of the business plan of this case and the revocation of the approval of the recruitment plan of this case.

However, under the premise that the Plaintiff still holds the status and right as the person authorized to approve the project plan for the instant golf course and is entitled to recruit the instant golf course, the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s status and right as the person authorized to approve the project plan for the instant golf course due to the Defendant’s amendment to the project plan. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by asserting that the Plaintiff’s amendment to the project plan for the instant golf course was unlawful because it overlaps with the prior Defendant’s admission approval, and therefore, the Plaintiff has legal interest in dispute as to the legitimacy of the instant amendment to

Therefore, this part of the argument of the defendant and the defendant is not accepted.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. As to the claim for revocation of the approval on modification of the business plan

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) The change of the approval of the business plan under Article 12 of the Sports Facilities Act is merely planned to change part of the contents of the business plan without changing the subject who obtained the approval of the business plan and maintaining it as it is. Thus, the disposition to change the business plan from the Plaintiff to the project operator is unlawful.

(B) Article 30(3) and (2) of the Sports Facilities Act should be interpreted to the effect that “A person who acquires essential facilities prior to completion by auction, realization, or sale of attached property does not naturally succeed to the approval of a business plan, but must have separate causes, such as a transfer contract with the person who has obtained the existing approval of a business plan in order to succeed to the approval of a business plan.” However, it is not reasonable to deem that a person who is so detached succeeds to the approval of a business plan of the instant golf course because he merely received a successful contract for the instant golf course facilities and did not have obtained a separate approval of a business plan from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the disposition to revise the approval of a business

② If Article 30(3) and (2) of the Sports Facilities Act provides that a successful bidder of an essential facility prior to the completion of this Act succeeds to the approval of a project plan as a matter of course without a separate transfer contract with the existing person authorized to approve a project plan, such provision is inconsistent with Articles 11(1) and 23(1) of the Constitution stipulating that the property value of the existing person’s business right and the benefit of the new person shall not be neglected, but shall sacrifice other general creditors for the protection of only members.

On the other hand, the part of Article 30(2) and (3) of the Sports Facilities Act that applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30(2) of the said Act was newly established or amended on May 29, 2003. The Addenda only provides that “this Act shall enter into force on the date three months have elapsed since its promulgation,” but does not include any different provisions as to the application of the said Act depending on whether the procedure was commenced prior to the enforcement of the amended Act. However, where an auction procedure is commenced prior to the enforcement of the amended Act, an appraisal of sports facilities shall be conducted by taking into account the transfer of separate approval of the business plan. On the other hand, where an auction procedure is commenced after the enforcement of the amended Act, an appraisal shall be conducted by taking into account the value of the approval of the business plan that is automatically succeeded, while it is clear that an appraisal of sports facilities shall be conducted by taking into account the value of the approval of the business plan that is automatically succeeded even if an auction procedure is commenced before the enforcement of the amended Act. This is equally treated as another case without any justifiable reason.

Therefore, the instant disposition on the basis of Article 30(3) and (2) of the Sports Facilities Act and the Addenda thereto in violation of the Constitution is unlawful.

(C) In addition, it is deemed that it was not possible to acquire the essential facilities of the instant golf course as it was acquired by auction only nine parcels out of ten parcels of the entire site of the instant golf course, and as it did not acquire the real estate of 89-1 woodland 3,056 square meters per Dog-ri, Chungcheongnam-si, which is a part of 3 and 4 holes among golf courses, due to its failure to acquire it. Therefore, the disposition to revise the instant business plan, which is premised on the acquisition of essential facilities of the instant golf course, is unlawful.

(2) Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(3) Determination

(A) As to the first argument

According to Articles 10 and 12 of the Sports Facilities Act and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a golf club business falls under a registered sports facility business, and a person who intends to operate a registered sports facility business shall prepare a business plan before installing a sports facility in accordance with facility standards and obtain approval from the Mayor/Do Governor. Where he/she intends to modify a business plan except for minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, he/she shall obtain approval from the Mayor/Do Governor. In addition, minor matters prescribed by Presidential Decree include matters concerning the change of the name and address of the representative of the corporation or matters concerning the change of trade name, but in cases of succession of the business plan under Article 30(3)

In light of the above provisions, it is reasonable to view that the business entity is changed due to the succession of the business plan and the change of the business entity, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the business entity cannot be changed due to the change of the business plan is without merit.

(B) On the second argument

1) Interpretation of the part of Article 30(3) of the Sports Facilities Act, amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003, which applies mutatis mutandis Article 30(2)

Article 30 of the former Sports Facilities Act (amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter “former Sports Facilities Act”) provides that “When a sports facility business operator transfers his/her business or dies, or when a corporation is merged with another corporation, the transferee, heir, or the corporation surviving the merger or established by the merger shall succeed to other rights and duties (including the matters agreed upon between the sports facility business operator and his/her members where members are recruited under Article 19)” (Article 30(2) of the same Act provides that “The provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to succession to the approval of a business plan under Article 12, but Article 30(1) of the same Act was amended by Act No. 6907 of May 29, 2003, and Article 30(2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “Where the sports facility business operator succeeds to an auction under the Civil Execution Act, the seizure of seized property under the Act, or the approval of a new sports facility business plan under the Local Tax Act.”

As above, Article 30(3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act provides that the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the succession of approval of a business plan. In light of the language and structure of the provision, Article 30(3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the succession of the requirements and effects of the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 30 concerning the succession of sports facilities business.

Therefore, the part to which Article 30(3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30(2) shall be interpreted to succeed to rights and obligations based on the approval, including the matters agreed upon between the existing business operator and its members, even though the person who acquired essential facilities by means of auction, etc., without any separate grounds for succession to the approval of the business plan only for the transfer of the right to approval of the existing business plan, etc.

Under the former Sports Facilities Act, which did not provide any provision as to the succession of approval of a business plan when acquiring essential facilities through auction, in order for a successful bidder to succeed to the approval of a business plan rather than to naturally succeed to the approval of a business plan (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da49836 Decided June 29, 2006). If Article 30(3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act applies mutatis mutandis to the part concerning the acquisition of essential facilities through auction, etc. as alleged by the plaintiff, it is interpreted that even if a person who acquired essential facilities through auction, etc. succeeds to the rights and duties required for the approval, there is no difference from the former Sports Facilities Act, and the purport of newly establishing or amending paragraphs (2) and (3) through the amendment of the Sports Facilities Act is inconsistent with the purport of the amended Sports Facilities Act.

In addition, the purpose of Article 30 of the amended Sports Facilities Act is to protect the rights and interests of members by ensuring that the rights and obligations of members can be succeeded, including the agreement between the existing person authorized to approve the project plan and the members even in cases where essential facilities are acquired through auction, etc., and if a person who acquired the essential facilities by auction, etc. separately requires that the existing person authorized to approve the project plan should obtain the transfer of the approval plan from the existing person authorized to approve the project plan, any essential facilities among the sports facilities before completion may not continue the business, even if they are disposed of through auction, etc., and even if the existing person authorized to approve the project plan and the successful bidder do not reach an agreement on the acquisition of the approval of the project plan, which will lead to the damage of members. This is clearly contrary to the purport of the amended Sports Facilities Act. If the approval of the project plan is not automatically succeeded even though the essential facilities were disposed by auction procedure, it is objectively clear that the existing person authorized to approve the project plan could not continue the business, and if thereafter, the successful bidder, etc. will lose all rights of members recruited based on the previous approval of the project plan.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the interpretation of the above provision is without merit.

2) Whether Article 30(3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30(2) and Article 30(2) of the Addenda, and the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is violated

① Even if ownership of essential facilities is transferred by auction, etc. under the former Sports Facilities Act, a successful bidder, etc. was able to succeed to the approval of a project plan by transfer contract with a successful bidder, etc., the existing person authorized to approve a project plan could acquire transfer proceeds through a transfer contract with the existing person authorized to approve a project plan. However, as a successful bidder, etc. can succeed to the approval of a project plan without a transfer contract with the existing person authorized to approve a project plan, the existing person authorized to approve a project plan

However, the purpose of the approval of a business plan for a person who intends to operate a registered sports facility business is to protect the rights and interests of the users of the sports facilities including members by examining in advance whether the person who intends to install and operate the sports facility can meet the facility standards prescribed by the law, including whether the person who intends to operate the sports facility business can meet the facility standards. Thus, in light of the fact that the transfer or acquisition of the sports facilities after the approval is made, there is no benefit in maintaining the legal status of the existing person authorized to approve a project plan, and that the successful bidder, etc. who acquired the ownership of the essential facilities among the sports facilities can operate the sports facility business by newly obtaining the approval of a project plan, even if the existing person authorized to approve a project plan loses the opportunity to acquire profits by concluding

Therefore, it shall not be deemed that Article 30 (3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30 (2) and Article 23 (1) of the Constitution guaranteeing property rights.

② Of Article 30(3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act, Article 30(2) of the same Act and Article 30(2) of the same Act protect the rights and interests of existing members by providing that the transferee of essential sports facilities succeeds to the rights, obligations and status under the existing approval of the person authorized to approve the project plan. We examine whether the said provision discriminates against other general creditors of the existing person authorized to approve the project plan without reasonable grounds and infringes on their property rights.

Article 11(1) and Article 23(1) of the Constitution that guarantees equal rights and property rights cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 11(1) of the Constitution, in full view of the following: (a) even if the existing person authorized to approve project plans loses an opportunity to transfer an essential facility to a person who acquired the essential facility, thereby sustaining economic disadvantages; (b) there is no change in active property already created by the existing person authorized to approve project plans; (c) the existing person authorized to approve project plans is exempted from the obligations to members; (d) the overall purpose of the Act that promotes the installation and use of a sports facility; and (e) there is a need to protect members to achieve such legislative purpose; and (e) there is no discrimination against other general creditors without reasonable grounds and infringe on their property rights to protect the rights and interests of members.

(3) On the other hand, if a security right, which is the cause of auction, has been created before the enforcement of the amended Sports Facilities Act, or acquires essential facilities after the commencement of the auction procedure, is subject to the above amended Sports Facilities Act, because the Addenda to the amended Sports Facilities Act does not include any different provisions depending on whether the procedure, such as auction, was commenced before the enforcement of the amended Sports Facilities Act.

However, even if an auction procedure is commenced prior to the enforcement of the amended Sports Facilities Act, it cannot be readily concluded that an appraisal is conducted taking into account only the value of the sports facilities as simple real estate. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, even if the existing person authorized to approve project plans, which commenced the auction procedure prior to the enforcement of the amended Sports Facilities Act, suffered a disadvantage in not transferring the approval of project plan unlike the originally anticipated, it cannot be deemed that the property right is infringed, and the existing person authorized to approve project plans, which goes beyond the obligation to members, does not give any unreasonable disadvantage to the existing person authorized to approve project plans, cannot be deemed as violating Article 11(1) of the Constitution,

④ Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 30(3) of the amended Sports Facilities Act applies mutatis mutandis to Article 30(2) and Article 30(2) and supplementary provisions are unconstitutional.

(C) As to the third argument

According to Article 11 of the Sports Facilities Act and Article 8 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism No. 129 of Feb. 1, 2006), sports facility business entities shall install, maintain and manage facilities that meet the facility standards prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism by type of sports facility business. ① Facilities that are common to sports facility business shall be equipped with convenience facilities such as parking lots, toilets, escape rooms, shower rooms, water supply facilities, safety facilities, and management facilities, and ② for golf course business, membership golf course business shall install sports facilities such as golf courses and golf equipment transport equipment with not less than 18 holes which can increase or decrease the length by not more than 25% of the total length according to topography based on 6,00 meters.

However, considering the overall purport of arguments in the statement No. 4-1, No. 4-2, No. 11-1, and No. 11-4, and No. 1-2, and No. 89-1 in the instant golf course site, among the instant golf course site, the fact that the instant golf course site was originally owned by the State, and the ownership transfer of the instant golf course was transferred to the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant golf course between the State and these State is continuing to exist in the form of narrow and dead land (a ditch before the land category change on December 27, 2003).

In full view of the following facts: (a) the size and shape of the instant golf course site and building acquired by hurf as above; (b) the size and shape of the portion not acquired; (c) the instant golf course was completed; and (d) the circumstances in which the instant golf course was not acquired; and (d) the fact that it seems possible to create a golf course with the exception of 89-1 of the said land per annum, even if the said hurf was not successful in the auction process, it is sufficient to view that the instant golf course acquired the essential facilities as referred to in Article 30(2) of the Sports Facilities Act by acquiring the ownership of the remaining site and buildings attached thereto by winning the successful bid and acquiring the ownership of the said golf course.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that it would not take over the essential facilities of the instant golf course is without merit.

B. As to the claim for cancellation of the membership recruitment plan approval of this case

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) According to Article 19 of the Sports Facilities Act, a person who is entitled to recruit membership of a sports facility is limited to a sports facility business entity or a person who has obtained the approval of the business plan. It is not a business entity that registered the sports facility business concerning the instant golf course, but a business entity that obtained the approval of the business plan concerning the instant golf course is not a business entity that obtained the approval of the business plan concerning the instant golf course, and a person who is not a person who has succeeded to the approval of the business plan for the instant golf course and thus is not a business entity

(B) The membership recruitment for new golf clubs can be limited to the extent of the amount approved as an investment for the establishment of the golf clubs. The amount approved by the plaintiff as an investment for the establishment of the golf clubs of this case is 56.32 billion won, and the amount of membership recruitment is 46.4 billion won,550 won by the plaintiff six times until August 30, 1997, and the plaintiff obtained an approval for membership recruitment from the defendant on November 7, 2000, 146 members and 10.2 billion won, and on September 3, 2004, the plaintiff issued membership recruitment approval for the above golf clubs of this case as of November 7, 2000, but the defendant thereafter issued membership recruitment for the above company as of November 16, 200, and it is unlawful for the plaintiff to approve the membership recruitment for more than the amount approved as an investment plan of this case.

(C) Although the joint representative director system was established at the time, the instant member recruitment plan was submitted under the sole name of right techniques. This is against the restriction of joint representatives, and thus the disposition of approval of the instant member recruitment plan is unlawful.

(2) Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(3) Determination

(A) As to the first argument

The plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the plaintiff is not entitled to recruit the golf course of this case as a person authorized to approve the project plan of this case, since the plaintiff's essential facilities of this case are awarded a successful bid in the auction procedure and succeeded to the approval of the project plan of this case on September 9, 2004 pursuant to Article 30 (3) and (2) of the Sports Facilities Act. The plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the plaintiff can not be subject to the invitation of members, is without merit, since the defendant's approval of the project plan of this case was approved on

(B) On the second argument

Article 19 of the Sports Facilities Act and Article 18-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19686, Sep. 22, 2006) provide that sports facility business entities or persons who have obtained approval of a business plan may recruit members; where they intend to recruit members, they shall submit to the competent Mayor/Do Governor the registered sports facility business along with terms and conditions of membership recruitment and a written confirmation of business facility installation process to the member recruitment plan by no later than 15 days prior to the date of membership recruitment; where they intend to modify the contents of the submitted terms and conditions of membership recruitment plan or membership recruitment, they shall submit the amended details thereof to the Mayor/Do governor; and the Mayor/Do governor shall review the submitted plan of membership recruitment and report the results thereof to the Mayor/Do governor within 10 days from the end of each quarter until the completion of membership recruitment; the person who has obtained approval of a business plan and is entitled to recruit members means a person who can become a sports facility business entity after completing the construction of a sports facility, and the person who lost the ownership of an essential facility is not included.

In addition, if a person who submitted a membership recruitment plan for a specified period of membership fails to complete the membership recruitment within the specified period, and the period of membership recruitment is to be extended, it shall be the modification of the membership recruitment plan. Therefore, the member recruitment plan prepared for the extension of the period of membership recruitment shall be re-designated

However, in the case of this case, as examined in the above facts, the plaintiff lost the ownership of the golf course facilities of this case by completely paying the successful bid price on July 1, 2004, and thus, the plaintiff lost the qualification for membership recruitment as to the golf course of this case. Thus, the above approval of membership recruitment plan as of November 7, 200 against the plaintiff was invalidated.

In addition, the approval of the membership recruitment plan that the plaintiff received from the defendant on November 7, 2000 was from November 8, 200 to September 30, 2001. The plaintiff was unable to recruit only one member until September 30, 2001, which is the expiration date of the membership recruitment period, and notified the defendant of such circumstance. As seen above, the plaintiff submitted a membership recruitment plan for which the plaintiff extended the membership recruitment period to the defendant on November 7, 2000, and submitted a membership recruitment plan for which the results were notified or obtained the approval of a separate membership recruitment plan for the plaintiff on November 7, 200. Thus, the approval of the membership recruitment plan for the plaintiff on November 7, 200 for the plaintiff was invalidated even after the expiration of the membership recruitment period.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that the above approval of the membership recruitment plan for the plaintiff on November 7, 2000 is valid is without merit.

(C) As to the third argument

In addition to the purport of argument in Gap evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2-2, the right method at the time of the disposition of approval of the membership recruitment plan in this case, and Jeon-man was registered as a joint representative director in order to be recovered above, and on October 4, 2004, at the time of the resolution of the board of directors concerning the membership recruitment, the right method and Jeon-man attended all at the time of the resolution of the board of directors on October 21, 2004 to make a resolution to collect 19 members from October 21, 2005. After that, the fact that the above resolution of the membership recruitment plan was made in the sole name of the right method as of October 6, 2004 and submitted to the defendant on October 14, 2004 can not be recognized as being submitted to the defendant under the name of the sole representative director. Although the preparation and submission of membership recruitment plan was made in the sole name of the right method, the plaintiff's argument that all the above joint representative director with the above resolution of the board of directors cannot be justified.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, the approval of the modification of the business plan of this case and the approval of the subscription plan of this case are not erroneous as alleged by the plaintiff, and all of them are lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed for all reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Judge)