The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a person who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, the subsequent suit is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764, Apr. 14, 2006). A person who succeeds to the status of an obligor and succeeds to the status of an obligor by extinguishing the obligor’s obligation after the closing of pleadings or a final and conclusive judgment after the closing of pleadings is the successor after the closing of pleadings, and thus, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit is overfinite, barring any special circumstances, the Plaintiff has no benefit in filing the subsequent suit.

According to the records, the Plaintiff entered into a membership contract with AIMD (hereinafter “AIMD”) and terminated the membership contract, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment on February 1, 2013 against AIMD by filing a lawsuit for refund of membership fee at the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap52712. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time. The Defendant succeeded to the sports facility business from AELD, and the Plaintiff was granted an execution clause by succession against the Defendant based on the above final and conclusive judgment.

However, Article 27(1) of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”) provides that “If a business has been transferred to a sports facility, a transferee shall succeed to the rights and obligations arising from the registration or report of the sports facility, including the matters agreed between the transferor and its members.”

The purpose of this is to maintain the management system of public law for the transferor established in relation to the authorization and permission of the business regardless of the change of the business entity, and the special purpose is to protect the interests of many members who have established the use relationship with the transferor, and the sports facility law has special restrictions on the qualification of members.