1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, including a claim modified in the trial, is as follows.

1. After remanding, the plaintiff filed a claim for refund of membership fees, property damages, and consolation money against the defendant. The first instance court accepted all of the plaintiff's claim for refund of membership fees and part of the claim for consolation money, and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claims.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant filed an appeal, and the plaintiff maintained the part of the claim for the refund of the membership fee in the trial before the remanding the case and changed only the part of the claim for compensation for property damage and consolation money to the claim for compensation for property damage and the conjunctive damages, and expanded the amount of claim for compensation for property damage.

The trial before remanded the plaintiff's claim that only part of the plaintiff's admission fee return and the primary claim was accepted, and the plaintiff's remaining claims were dismissed.

As to this, only the Defendant appealed (as to this, the conjunctive claim in the trial before remand became final and conclusive as it was not the Plaintiff’s appeal). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded only the claim for damages among the part against the Defendant in the judgment before remand.

Therefore, the part of the judgment before remanding is already separated by the judgment of remanding, and the scope of the judgment after remand is limited to the part of the main claim of the judgment before remanding.

2. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of

Around May 13, 2005, the Plaintiff changed from 9 pages 9 to 14 as follows: (a) around May 13, 2005, the Seoul Central District Court confirmed that the instant golf club membership operated by the Defendant was the Plaintiff; (b) during the first instance trial, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, but (c) at the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2007Na9769).