See Attached 1 List (Law Firm Inulul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Coup Global Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 21, 2015

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap106282 Decided May 15, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs is changed as follows. It is confirmed that there is no obligation of the plaintiffs to pay 47,750,000 additional deposit or annual fee of 1,910,000 won to the defendant. The defendant shall not interfere with or prohibit the plaintiffs from using all of the sports facilities listed in the separate sheet 2 for the reason that the plaintiffs fail to perform the above additional deposit or annual fee payment obligation. The plaintiffs shall not interfere with or prohibit the plaintiffs from using 00,000,0000 for free use of the parking lot attached to 0,000,000 won, and the plaintiffs shall not refuse to comply with the transfer procedure if they dispose of 0,000,000,0000 won to a third party.

1. Basic facts

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the part of “1. Basic Facts”, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to a claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation

A. Possibility of adjusting the plaintiffs' deposit

1) Whether the instant rules apply to the Plaintiffs

A) The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' deposits, which are the special members of Ssch Rexroth, may be adjusted pursuant to Article 17 of the instant rules (Evidence B (Evidence B). The plaintiffs asserted that there is no ground for the defendant's adjustment of the plaintiffs' deposits on the grounds that the instant rules were voluntarily made by the defendant to respond to the lawsuit, or that the amended rules were enforced before November 15, 1999, and were amended by the defendant's steering committee around October 25, 199, and were amended by the defendant's steering committee around November 15, 199, and were not included in the same provisions as Article 17 of the instant rules.

However, in light of the following points, it is reasonable to view the instant rules as effective rules that have taken effect since November 20, 1984, as stipulated in Article 20, and are applied to the Defendant, including the Plaintiffs, as well as to the members of Sex Rexroth and the Defendant, who are the facilities subject thereof.

(1) The Defendant’s letter of goods (No. 23-1) dated August 10, 1986, which includes the regulation on the use of facilities for unpaid persons, including membership fees, cited “Article 16(3) of the Regulations,” and the content thereof is identical to Article 16(3) of the Regulations, and Article 8, Article 11 (Non-Refund of Membership Fees), Article 16 (Payment in Installments), and Article 16(3) of the Regulations, cited in the letter of demand for payment of membership fees (No. 23-2) of the Rules, also includes “Article 8, Article 11, Article 16(3) of the Regulations.”

The written evidence (Evidence B No. 24) on the Defendant’s annual fee increase in 1996, proposed on December 21, 1995, and the Defendant’s written evidence (Evidence B No. 25) on January 18, 1999 on the Defendant’s annual fee increase in 199, stated “Article 17 of the Regulations” on the basis of each membership fee increase.

Unlike the plaintiffs' assertion, the meeting minutes of the defendant's steering committee (No. 67, No. 20) dated 25, 1999 and December 17, 1999 do not contain a statement that the amendment of the rules and bylaws was made (the plaintiffs asserted that the Gap evidence No. 67 was forged, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Ssch Rexroth's meeting (Evidence No. 7) asserts that the plaintiffs were amended around October 1999, that the name of the managing body was "Copis" rather than "Copis", and Article 17 (No. 67, No. 20) states that the name of the managing body was "the modification of the membership fee," but the content of Article 17 (No. 17) is "the modification of the membership fee," but it is difficult to view that the defendant's amendment was made in excess of the amended rules of No. 28, and it is also difficult to see that the defendant's explanation was made in accordance with the above 90-2 amendment rules.

In addition, since 199, the defendant raised the annual fees of ordinary members every year. If the rules were amended to delete the ground provisions on the adjustment of various membership fees on November 15, 1999, such as the plaintiffs' assertion, the defendant would have raised the annual fees without any grounds by revising the rules to be very very roughly disadvantageous to himself/herself, and it is difficult to obtain them in light of the empirical rule.

(v) the instant rules are included in the Defendant’s letter of regulations published on June 1, 2005 (No. 5), and the official text of the Fair Trade Commission (Fair Trade Commission No. 47)’s request for the submission of data on the review of the terms and conditions (No. 47), indicating “Article 8 (Non-Refund of Membership Fees) and Article 16 (Extinction of Membership Fees and Temporary Suspension) of the instant rules as the content of the terms and conditions subject to the request for review of unfair terms and conditions.”

B) Furthermore, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 17-3, 4, 22-1 through 6, 35, and 46-1 of the evidence Nos. 17-3, 22-2, 35 of the evidence Nos. 35, and 46-1 of the evidence No. 46, among the plaintiffs, persons who have entered into a special membership agreement directly with the defendant among the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the member agreement of this case") with the previous special members who have transferred the plaintiffs or their special rights to them have entered into the special membership agreement with the defendant at the time of signing the membership agreement with the defendant can be recognized the fact that they submitted it to the defendant after signing the membership membership agreement with the defendant at the time. In light of the various circumstances as seen in the above paragraph (a), the member agreement approved by them are deemed to mean the rules of this case. In addition, those who have individually acquired the special rights of the plaintiffs can be presumed to have succeeded to the status of the members they acquired under the premise of the previous special member agreement. Ultimately of this case between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

2) The validity of Article 17 of the instant bylaws

A) First of all, it is reasonable to view that Article 17 of the Addenda of the Terms and Conditions Act (Article 3922, December 31, 1987) falls under the terms and conditions clause prepared in advance in order to conclude a membership contract with a large number of members. However, the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”) was enacted on December 31, 1986 after the commencement of the membership contract of this case and came into force on July 1, 1987. However, Article 2 of the Addenda of the Terms and Conditions Act (Article 3922, December 31, 1986) provides that “this Act shall apply from the first terms and conditions entered into after this Act enters into force.” Article 3 of the Terms and Conditions Act provides that “This Act shall apply to the portion to be implemented after this Act enters into force in accordance with the terms and conditions for a contract aimed at the continuous occurrence of a claim relationship, such as the Agreement of this case.”

B) The Plaintiffs asserted that since the Defendant did not notify, explain, or explain the contents of Article 17 of the Rules at the time of entering into the instant membership agreement, it cannot be the content of the instant membership agreement.

However, as seen earlier, since the previous special members who transfer the rights of special members to the plaintiffs or their special members include the phrase that they approve the instant rules in the written application for membership membership submitted to the defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant membership agreement, it is insufficient to recognize that the results of each personal examination against the plaintiff 281 of the court of the first instance or the plaintiff 281 of the court of the first instance on the plaintiff 393 of the court of the first instance did not reveal any notification, explanation, or explanation as to Article 17 of the instant rules, it is insufficient to recognize that the results of each personal examination against the plaintiff 393 of the court of the first instance on the part of the plaintiff 281, and the written application for membership membership membership membership membership membership submission submitted by the plaintiff 393 (No. 35 of the Plaintiff 281), there

C) The Plaintiffs asserted that Article 17 of the Rules of the instant case grants the Defendant the authority to unilaterally change the content of the benefits without a substantial reason, and that it falls under Article 10 subparag. 1 of the Terms and Conditions Act and thus is null and void.

However, if the regulations stipulate that the facility owner of a sports center may adjust membership fees, which are the consideration for the use of facilities, in consideration of public charges, price increases, and other economic factors, the authority to determine whether to increase membership fees and the scope of such increase can be interpreted to be delegated to the facility owner. Thus, the authority to determine whether to permit the use of facilities with multiple members is not to have the authority to arbitrarily determine membership fees without any reasonable ground, but to determine whether to increase membership fees and the scope of such increase may be determined within an objective reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da35098 delivered on February 27, 1996). According to these legal principles, the provision that "all kinds of membership fees may be adjusted in consideration of the increase of public charges, price fluctuations, and other economic conditions, etc." in Article 17 of the Regulations of the Sports Center can be interpreted to be that the defendant can adjust various types of membership fees within an objective and reasonable scope only when there are reasonable grounds as the facility owner of Spanex, and the authority to unilaterally change the contents of Article 17 of the Rules of the case to be deemed null and void.

D) Article 17 of the instant Rule is valid, and it is reasonable to deem that the content of the instant membership agreement is the content of the instant membership agreement.

3) Possibility of adjusting special security deposits

A) Whether a special member's deposit is included in the "Various membership fees" under Article 17 of the instant Rule

In full view of the following rules, detailed rules, and the provisions of the Guidelines for Invitation of Members, it is interpreted that the "Various membership fees" under Article 17 of the Rules of this case includes the deposit of special members.

(1) Articles 9 and 10 of the instant Rules provide for membership fees and annual fees in return for the use of facilities paid by the Ssch Rexroth members. Article 11 provides that “A member may pay membership fees in installments, but in the case of membership fees and deposits, the payment shall be made in preference to the membership fees,” and that “A member shall be made in preference to the membership fees,” thereby indicating that the membership fees include membership fees (admission fees and deposits).

Article 1 of the Rotterdam Rules provides that "the membership fee shall be referred to in the guidelines for membership with respect to the types of members and membership fees." The Rules for membership recruitment (No. 12-5) that appears to fall thereunder have the following items: membership fee, deposit, and annual fee items.

B) The meaning of sale of special members

Furthermore, considering the following points, it is reasonable to view that the security deposit, which is the cost of the use of facilities borne by special members, may be adjusted in cases where the grounds prescribed in Article 17 of the instant bylaws have occurred.

(1) According to the evidence No. 36 and evidence No. 43-1 of the evidence No. 36, the Defendant’s interest rate on fixed deposits in commercial banks in 1985, which opened Sex, can be acknowledged as having reached 10% per annum. According to the above interest rate, in the case of special members, ① 4.10,00 won per annum (i.e., 1., 4., 1430,000 won + 3.180,000 won per annum) and 3.18,000 won per annum in the case of general members (i.e., 3., 180,000 won x 1.288,000 won) and 4.8,000,000 won per annum in the case of general members (i.e., 1., 600,000 won x 1.2,000 won in the case of special members).

Nevertheless, the agreement on the payment of the facility use price is reached on the condition that the annual fee is not separately paid for a special member. As seen above, the defendant shall collect from a special member the initial funds required for the opening of the Ssch Rexroth, and with respect to the subsequent facility use price, the special member shall be equivalent to the interest of the market interest rate at the time of the deposit he paid. The special member shall be equivalent to the interest on the deposit paid by him, and the general member shall be equal to the interest on the deposit and the annual fee paid by his member and the defendant shall be equal to the mutual understanding between his members and the defendant (Article 9 of the Rule of the case provides that the deposit of the subscription fee of the special member shall be refunded through the prescribed procedure at the time of his withdrawal, considering the fact that the deposit of the subscription fee of Article 9 of the special member shall be paid at the time of his withdrawal. In fact, 14.38,000 won and the admission fee of the special member shall be borne at the same time as 88,8800,000 won per annum.

Considering such circumstances, “Adjustment of various membership fees” as prescribed in Article 17 of the instant Rule can be understood as the adjustment of the above facility use price, which is actually borne by special members and general members.

If the cost of using the facilities actually borne by the special members is calculated in the above manner, if the actual burden of the cost of using the facilities occurs due to the reasons such as the increase of public charges as stipulated in Article 17 of the Assembly Rule of this case, price and other economic conditions, the actual burden of the cost of using the facilities is not new annual fee exempted from the obligation to pay to the special members, but at least to adjust the deposit which serves as the basis for calculating the cost of using the facilities at least cannot be interpreted as possible from the adjustment of the annual fee of the general members.

In the case of special members, the amount of deposits determined at the time of initial recruitment can not be adjusted even if the above circumstances set forth in Article 17 of the Rules of this case arise, and if it is also impossible to impose an obligation to pay annual fees, if special members are transferred before transfer (the plaintiff claims prohibition of refusal to implement the transfer procedure of the defendant on the disposition of transfer, donation, etc. to a third party of special members in this case). The deposit is maintained as it is at the first determined amount even for the person who acquired the status of members, and the defendant cannot adjust the amount of the deposit even for the person who acquired the status of members after a considerable period of three months after the opening of Ssch Rex (the instant rules do not provide that the operation time of Ssch Rex has not been set) has passed since the opening of Ssch Rex (the instant rules). It does not seem that the previous special members and the defendant, who transferred the rights to the plaintiffs or their special members, intended to have concluded the membership agreement of this case.

Applicant In fact, the general member of Sex increases the annual fee by up to 2.86 million won in 2012 whenever various factors such as price increase exist, such as remodeling and remodelling construction (the annual fee, which is about 3.60,000 won at the time of initial recruitment). According to the above evidence, the interest rate of time deposits in commercial banks in 2012 can be acknowledged that the annual interest rate of time deposits in commercial banks in 2012 has been lowered by 3.43% in a year. Unless there are differences between the special member and the general member, the above imbalance between the amount of time deposits for use of facilities cannot be deemed justifiable. According to each of the statements of No. 39 and 40, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiffs to continuously dispatch the annual fee to the general member on September 200, 2005, which is deemed to have been exempted from the annual fee by the Defendant’s general member on the grounds of the increase of time deposits in 2006.

C) Whether there is an arrangement exempt from additional burden

The plaintiffs claim that the defendant agreed to ensure that the previous special members who transfer the rights of special members to the plaintiffs or their special members should not bear any burden on lifelong including the increase of future deposit. However, the defendant's statement Nos. 42-1 through 18, 52, 53, 55, 58, 62-1, 281 of the court of the first instance, 281 of the court of the first instance, 393 of the court of the first instance, which was in charge of the defendant's recruitment duty, stated that the non-party 3 of the first instance court, who was in charge of the defendant's recruitment duty, only explained that the defendant is exempted from the imposition of annual fee for the special members at the time of the special members, 2. The evidence of the evidence as mentioned above, Gap No. 79, 393 of the first instance court's personal examination is mixed with the statement that the annual fee is exempted in the case of special members, and there is no possibility that it is no possibility to fully explain the special members's.

D) Ultimately, in the case of special members pursuant to Article 17 of the instant Rule, the increase of deposits, not the new imposition of annual fees, would be sufficiently possible. According to the written evidence Nos. 41 and 42 of the instant Rule, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant has allowed general members to increase annual fees in 2012 to use them as the method of paying additional deposits. This can be understood in the same context.

4) Whether various grounds for the adjustment of membership fees under Article 17 of the instant Rule arise

Article 17 of the instant Rule provides for “the increase of public charges, prices, and other economic conditions” due to the adjustment of various membership fees. In light of the following, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, around July 2012, determined the increase of deposit by special members, that the amount of deposit previously assumed by the Plaintiffs was “the significant change in the price and other economic conditions” that is difficult to maintain as it is for the use of the facilities by the special members.

A) a price fluctuation;

According to Eul evidence Nos. 44 and 45, when 2010 was seen as 100, the producer price index was 52.4307 to 2012 from 1985 to 107.45 to 2012, and the consumer price index was 34.212 to 106.28 to 2012.

B) Changes in interest rates;

According to Gap evidence No. 36 and Eul evidence No. 43, the interest rate on time deposits in commercial banks has been reduced to 10% per annum from 1985 to 192, and 7.5% per annum from 1993 to 13.3% per annum from 1998, and continued to drop to 6.9% per annum in 2012, and the interest rate on time deposits in commercial banks has been reduced to 3.43% per annum in 2012. The call interest rate or CD interest rate has also been reduced to 1985 to 192, 193 to 200, 200 to 3.7% per annum from 193 to 200, and 198 to 198% per annum from 201, and 209 to 198.9% per annum from 209 to 198.9% per annum from 201.9% per annum.

(c) expansion and reconstruction of the facilities of Bosch Rexroth;

According to the statements and images in Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 13, the defendant stated that in 2005, the full repair work for Mana and swimming pool, the full replacement work for 2009, the remodeling work for 201, and the remodeling work for 2005 through 2012, the total amount of 4.3 billion won for 200 million won for 201 remodeling work for 2010 million won for 2000 million won for 2000 million won for 201 remodeling work for 2000. The defendant at the open steering committee of the defendant on Sep. 2005 stated that "the increase of membership fees due to facility construction, etc. shall not be made only to the general members, and the special members shall also be exempted from the total amount of 1.0 billion won for 20 years for 20 years for 200 or more for 10 years for 20 years for 200 or more for 20 years for 2010 members for 20 years for 20.0 years for 2 years for 20

Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned evidence, the 3rd floor farm site in this field, which was not a member facility as a result of the construction in 2011, has been converted into a physical training room (781.92m2m2), the area of the steering room was wideed by 28.02m2, and the group sports room, the circular playground, the string playground, the string room, the sports room, the sports room, and the table room, etc. are newly established, and all new sports organizations are established. As seen below, the objective value of the special training center on October 10, 2013, which was implemented after the extension and remodeling of each of the above facilities, was assessed to be equivalent to KRW 56.5 million as a result of the appraisal by Nonparty 4 of the first instance trial, which was conducted after the extension and remodeling of each of the facilities.

D) The increase of annual fees for ordinary members

As seen earlier, the annual fee of a general member was increased by approximately eight times from KRW 360,00 to KRW 2860,000 in 1985.

B. Scope of appropriate additional deposits

(i)the calculation of the appropriate amount of deposit;

A) If Article 17 of the Rules of this case provides that the defendant, who is the main body of facilities of Bosch Rexroth, has the authority to adjust various membership fees, including special security deposits, taking into account the increase of public charges or price and other economic conditions, it shall be deemed that the defendant has the obligation to pay the plaintiffs' additional security deposits within an objective reasonable scope when the defendant requested payment with the amount of the security deposit to be additionally borne by the plaintiffs. In this case where the plaintiffs and the defendant dispute where the possibility of the increase of the security deposit of special members and the limit of the increase is anywhere, the court may determine the scope of the plaintiffs' obligations (if the plaintiffs and the defendant both recognize the obligation to pay additional security deposit to the defendant, even if the reasonable scope is less than the amount of the security deposit requested by the defendant, the court shall determine the amount thereof).

B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that Article 17 of the Rules of the instant case also provides for the grounds on which the Plaintiffs and the Defendant can adjust various membership fees through consultation. On such premise, Article 17 of the Rules of the instant case, which is the contents of the instant membership agreement, may be deemed to have agreed to determine the deposit amount to be modified and applied pursuant to the above provisions within a reasonable scope (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da393484, Mar. 23, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da3943464, Apr. 31, 208, etc.) where the grounds for the adjustment of the deposit stipulated in the above provisions have occurred, such as the increase of public charges, price and other economic conditions, etc., upon the Defendant’s unilateral request for the increase of the deposit, and it does not immediately change the deposit amount in an objective amount, and if the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed on the appropriate deposit amount, the increase of the deposit amount shall not be permitted if the Plaintiffs did not refuse the adjustment of the deposit.

C) Even if the meaning or nature of Article 17 of the instant Rule is interpreted to either of the above two cases, the court may either determine whether the amount of the plaintiffs' deposit raised by the defendant is appropriate or determine the appropriate amount of the deposit.

2) The scope of the plaintiffs' obligations to pay additional deposits to the defendant

In full view of the following points, although the amount of the deposit that the Defendant demanded to raise to the Plaintiffs is a little amount of money calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the value of the initial subscription fee as of 2012 from the appraisal price of the first instance court for the value of special rights, it seems that in light of the price and other economic changes as seen earlier, it did not considerably exceed the scope of reasonable and reasonable increase.

A) The annual fee of 2012 for regular members was determined as 2.860,00 won for commercial banks. The defendant, as of the regular members as of 10% per annum 10,000 won for regular deposits in commercial banks (i.e., 1280,000 won x 10% x 10% x 10% x 360,000 won per annum 316% per annum for regular members (i.e., 3. 3180,000 x 1000 x 10%) based on the fact that 3.5% per annum for regular members in commercial banks in 2012 x 2,911,200 won per annum 46% per annum for regular members; and (ii) the defendant seems to have applied the annual interest rate of 94% per annum for special members in 286,000 won per annum 165,000 won per annum.

First of all, it is difficult to conclude that the increase of the annual fee of a general member was unfair beyond an objective and reasonable scope, barring any special circumstance, if the increase of the annual fee of a general member was effective on the grounds of the occurrence of the grounds for the adjustment of various kinds of the annual fee stipulated in Article 17 of the Assembly Rule, or through consultation between the general member and the defendant. Furthermore, there is sufficient room to view the method of calculating the annual amount of the annual amount of the general member’s annual amount to be borne by the special member as above in the manner that the ratio of the amount of the annual amount to be borne by the special member of the sports center to the amount to be borne by the special member and the general member’s facilities at the same time may be maintained similar

B) As a result of the first instance appraisal, on October 10, 2013, the value of the special rights (based on regular members) of S Rexroth as of October 10, 2013 was assessed to be equivalent to KRW 56,50,000. The first instance judgment’s appraisal is based on the comparison between the sale price of the last special members of △△△dong located in △△dong, Seoul, a sports center in the same type, and the said value is deemed to have been reflected in the value increase due to remodeling construction in 201.

C) Even if the plaintiffs are required to pay additional deposits, the rights of the plaintiffs or special members who transfer their special rights to the defendant in 1985 pursuant to the proviso to Article 17 of the Rules of this case should be recognized. However, according to the current 4.610,00 won is the amount of KRW 13,938,897 as of 2012 (=4.610,000) x 115.2 (GaP dp d d d d d d d d d d d 1, 2012) ± 38.1 (1985, 1985) - the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000 paid by the plaintiffs or special members to the defendant as the first d d d d d d d 1 (including each number) d d d d d d d d d d d d d d 1 (1) d d d d d d d d 1).

D) The difference between the first instance appraiser on the value of special membership and the amount equivalent to the value as of the base of the year 2012 for the initial membership of the special member reaches KRW 42,561,103. However, there is no big difference between the difference between the Defendant’s additional charges of KRW 47750,000 that the Defendant demanded payment to the Plaintiffs or 10% for the early payer.

E) The deposit of a special member may be adjusted only in the event of a special and exceptional change in price or other economic conditions as stipulated in Article 17 of the Session of this case, and it is not of the nature that can be increased or decreased from time to time due to the fluctuation in the market price of the special member. The defendant's request for the above additional deposit against the plaintiffs is made on the grounds of complex circumstances, such as price and interest rate fluctuations, expansion and reconstruction of the Ssch Rexroth facilities, and adjustment of the annual fee of the general member prior to 27 years after the special member was first recruited. The increased amount needs to be determined at a level that can be maintained for a long time, unless there is a significant change in the above economic conditions in the future.

F) Even if the deposit of a special member is increased, it would be returned from the defendant when a member retires from the defendant, not from the defendant ultimately attributed to the defendant. In this sense, an appropriate additional deposit shall be calculated by taking into account the annual amount of the facility use cost to be actually borne by the special member through its payment as an important factor.

G) The Plaintiffs asserts that the current base value of KRW 19.8 million for the membership rights to use sports complex in Seoul Special Metropolitan City should be taken into account for the adequate calculation of additional deposits for special members. However, the current base value is determined by the head of a local government to determine the standards for taxation of various local taxes pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Local Tax Act, and it is inappropriate to take them into account as the basis for the calculation

3) Whether annual fee forms are recognized as liability

Although there is no explicit provision for special members to demand annual fees, the reason why the Defendant permitted the Plaintiffs to select and pay the annual fees seems to be to allow the Plaintiffs, who are contrary to the demand for payment of additional deposits, to choose the method of payment. However, the Defendant’s above measures, which are distinct from the imposition of new annual fees exempted from the obligation to pay to the Plaintiffs, do not seem to significantly exceed the objective reasonable scope in terms of the method of payment of additional deposits.

C. Sub-decision

Around July 2012, the Defendant, the main body of facilities of Bosch Rexroth, demanded the Plaintiffs, who are special members, to pay additional deposit of KRW 47750,000 or KRW 1910,000,000,00 within the scope of the increased amount of facility usage fees objectively and reasonably pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of this case, and the Plaintiffs shall be deemed to bear the obligation to pay the above amount to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation of the absence of the above payment obligation is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for the prohibition of interference

The plaintiffs claim that the defendant should not interfere with or prohibit the plaintiffs' use of sports facilities and free use of affiliated parking lots on the grounds that the defendant did not fulfill his/her obligation to pay additional deposit or annual fee, and that he/she should not refuse the implementation of transfer procedures due to such disposition as transfer of special members' rights to third parties.

However, Article 16 (3) of the Rules of the Association of this case provides that "the defendant may temporarily suspend or deprive a member's qualification if the member fails to comply with the defendant's demand for payment due to the default of membership fees and other payments," and Article 13 of the Rules on the Use of Parking Lots (Evidence No. 18) provides that "No free parking shall apply to any unpaid user of the main hall and the new library and any unpaid user fees (such as membership fees, tuition fees, and tuition fees) and may refuse entry and parking if the unpaid parking fees are unpaid," and as seen above, as long as the defendant's demand for the payment of additional deposit or other alternative annual fees against the plaintiffs is justifiable, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to allow the use, etc. of the representative sports facilities claimed by the plaintiffs.

This part of the plaintiffs' claims is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in some different conclusions, but it is not possible to change the judgment of the court of first instance so that it is favorable to the defendant who did not appeal and it is disadvantageous to the plaintiffs who filed an appeal. Accordingly, only the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided

[Attachment]

Judge Oi-tae (Presiding Judge)