beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the lower court determined that the agreement on membership rights and interests should be exceptionally restricted in cases where the agreement on membership rights and interests is modified to the extent that it could have been sufficiently predicted at the time of joining the membership and that the agreement on membership rights and interests is acceptable under the social norms, as well as where the agreement on membership rights and interests is modified to the language and text of the agreement on membership rights and interests, even if the agreement on membership rights and interests was not modified in light of the circumstances as at the time of joining the membership, including the circumstances at the time of amending the agreement on membership rights and interests, the process and necessity of amending the agreement on membership rights and interests, the contents of the modified agreement, and its impact on the rights and interests of the members.
In light of the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of Article 19 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act.
(2) In full view of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of withdrawal pursuant to the above provision on the ground that such change in circumstances was sufficiently foreseeable at the time of the instant membership agreement, and it constitutes a degree acceptable by social norms, even though it is difficult for the Plaintiff, a general member, to do so as to ensure that the Defendant recruited preferential, regular, and general members and offered preferential membership around November 2007 and May 2008, thereby guaranteeing them to do so.
In light of the records, we can find out that the reasoning of the judgment below is erroneous that the Plaintiff’s recovery of salking at the end of the week in 2010 was not once but twice.
However, this shall be applicable.