Plaintiff 1 and 12 others (Law Firm Western, Attorney Cho Young-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

MSPPPP et al. (Law Firm P & P, Attorneys Seo-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 20, 2018

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Gahap20850 Decided August 17, 2017

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant Alvidi case (hereinafter "the defendant Alvidi case") shall pay each of the plaintiffs 19,80,000 won with the interest of 15% per annum from the day following the day of the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendant MSdib's Bovik Co., Ltd shall pay each of the plaintiffs 19,80,000 won with the interest of 15% per annum from the day following the day of the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and such reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Article 12(1) of the first instance judgment of the first instance court (amended by Act No. 4719 of Feb. 7, 1994) provides that “In accordance with Article 7(1) of the Act (amended by Act No. 4719 of Jan. 7, 1994), the first instance judgment of the first instance shall be subject to Article 8 of the Act.”

○, the fifth and fifth written judgment of the first instance court, "from September 5, 192," written from around September 5, 1992, was followed by "from around August 5, 1992."

○ The 10th to 13th of the 9th instance judgment of the first instance court, "Therefore, the 10th of the 13th of the 13th of the 13th of the 19th instance judgment

"However, the non-party company as well as all the defendants who succeeded to the rights and obligations of the non-party company and did not perform their obligations under each member agreement regarding the above skiing ground because they did not operate the skiing ground of this case. The plaintiffs terminated each of the above agreements with the defendants by service of a copy of the complaint of this case, and they subsequently succeeded to the rights and obligations of the non-party company, which is a sports facility business entity, by acquiring the real estate of this case in the first place, and seek return of the subscription fee upon the termination of each of the above agreements between the non-party company and the plaintiffs against the non-party company."

In the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s conduct of conduct 17 through 18 of conduct 9 of conduct 17 of the first instance judgment was “No person exists” and the Plaintiff’s right was “no person is deemed a member protected under the former Sports Facilities Act.”

○ The amended Act No. 4719 of Jan. 7, 1994 (amended by Act No. 5636 of Jan. 18, 199) of the first instance judgment No. 10, No. 18 of 10, 1994 (amended by Act No. 5636 of Jan. 18, 199).

Then, the first instance judgment’s text “(i) was amended by Act No. 5636 of Jan. 18, 1999, but excluding the amended by Act No. 5636 of Jan. 18, 199, “to prepare and submit a membership recruitment plan to Mayors/Do Governors or Mayors/Do Governors, etc. 15 days before the date of membership recruitment” is added.

○ The first instance judgment of the first instance court (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14284 of Jun. 17, 1994) stated in the first instance judgment as “before it was amended by Presidential Decree No. 15003 of May 28, 1996.”

Article 18-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the First Instance No. 9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 18(3) and (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 18(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) shall be added to “The same purport as the previous Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 18(3) and (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes).”

Pursuant to the 13th sentence of the first instance judgment, approximately 20 years' "at least 16 years" in the 6th sentence shall be applied.

○ In the first instance judgment, the term “member” means a person who has agreed with a sports facility business entity to use the facilities of the sports facility business preferentially or under more favorable terms than the general user. The term “member” means a person who has agreed with the sports facility business entity.

○ 14 pages 18 of the first instance judgment, “A evidence No. 14,” should be added in front of “A evidence No. 14” in the first instance judgment No. 18.

The "common facilities" in Part 12 of the 15th judgment of the first instance court shall be applied to "common essential facilities".

○, Nos. 15, 18, and 19 of the first instance judgment, “A person has been neglected from around 200 to around 200,” and “A person has neglected to manage the skiing ground of this case without properly managing the skiing ground of this case and has completely suspended the business of the skiing ground of this case around 2005.”

○○ Decision Nos. 16, 14, and 20, respectively, shall be followed as follows.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant sports facility business entity’s construction of a 2nd gymnasium, gymnasium, gymnasium, gymnasium, gymnasium, and a gymnasium, was included in the gymnasium for the use of the gymnasium and the gymnasium. However, in light of the above circumstances in paragraph (c) above (i.e., (ii) the gymnasium’s construction of the gymnasium and the gymnasium’s construction of the gymnasium and the gymnasium’s construction of the gymnasium and the gymnasium’s construction of the gymnasium and construction of the gymna’s construction of the gymna’s construction of the gymna’s construction of the g.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, all appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

Judges Ori-man (Presiding Judge)