2015Da78857 Confirmation, etc. of the existence of an obligation

As shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

Law Firm Bulul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Copia Global Corporation

Law Firm, Attorneys Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na32962 Decided November 13, 2015

December 27, 2019

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that an agreement was concluded to avoid lifelong burden, the lower court did not accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the agreement was concluded with the special members at the time of entering into the instant membership agreement to prevent any additional burden on the general members.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the assertion that the Defendant violated the duty to explain and explain in relation to Article 17 of the Rules of the Association, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant violated the duty to explain and explain the terms and conditions in relation to Article 17 of the Rules of the Association. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. As to the assertion that the increase in membership fees was not made within the reasonable scope

A. If the regulations stipulate that the facility owner of a health club can arbitrarily adjust membership fees, which are the consideration for the use of the club 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 increase thereof can be deemed delegated to the facility owner. However, it cannot be interpreted that the facility owner has the authority to arbitrarily determine membership fees without any reasonable ground. Rather, the facility owner who entered into a contract for the use of the facility with multiple members can determine whether to increase membership fees and the scope of increase thereof only within the extent that is objectively reasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da35098 delivered on February 27, 1996).

B. 1) The lower court determined that: (a) during the period of 1985, the opening of the instant sports center from 1985 to 2012, the membership fees calculated by the following methods did not deviate from an objective reasonable scope, taking into account the following: (b) the producer price index was at least twice; (c) the consumer price index was increased by at least three times per annum; (b) the interest rate was reduced by at least three percent per annum; (c) the Defendant’s input of the construction cost of KRW 4.3 billion; and (d) the annual fee of the general member was increased by at least eight times from 3.60,00 to 2.8,00,00 won; and (c) as at the time of 1985, the general member was assumed to apply the interest rate of a commercial bank of KRW 108,00 per annum to regular members; and (d) the annual fee was at least KRW 360,000 per annum.

B) At the time of 1985, special members had a burden of 318,00,000 won per annum under the premise that the interest rate on fixed deposits in commercial banks with 10% per annum is applied to regular members ( = 318,000 won per annum x 10%).

C) The annual shares of special members as of 1985 constitute approximately 65.16% of the annual shares of the general members ( = 3.18,000 won: 48,000 won x 100).

D) The annual fee of a general member was set at KRW 2,860,000 for the general member as of 2012. However, under the premise that the interest rate of a commercial bank deposit is 4% per annum, the annual amount to be borne by a general member is 2,911,200 won ( = 1280,000 won per annum x 4% per annum + 2860,000 won per annum).

E) Therefore, a special member shall pay the annual fee of KRW 1.910,00,000,000, which is 2,911,200 won, 65.6% (which shall be subject to 65.16%, but which shall be deemed to have been mistakenly applied) per annum, or shall additionally pay the deposit of KRW 4,750,000,000,000,000, computed by applying the rate of 4% per annum.

2) However, it is difficult to accept the above judgment of the court below in the following respect. (A) The reasoning of the judgment below and the records reveal the following facts. (1) The defendant recruited members by means of selling membership between 1985 and 191, the opening of the sports center of this case, and separately recruited special members and general members. (2) The defendant received membership fees exceeding 2 times of general members from special members ( = membership fees + deposit money) and raised early funds necessary for opening the sports center of this case. At the time, the defendant did not impose annual fees on special members.

(3) Article 17 of the instant Rule, which was implemented since the opening of the instant sports center, may be adjusted in consideration of the increase of public charges, price, and other economic conditions: Provided, That the right to the previously paid membership fees is recognized. (4) The producer price index increased above 1.6 times during the period from 1985 to 2004, and the consumer price index increased above 2.4 times.

(5) The interest rate on commercial bank deposits was 10% per annum between 1985 and 192; 8.5% per annum between 1993 and 10% per annum in 194; 7.5% per annum in 1994; 7.79% per annum in 1996; 10.79% per annum in 1997; 132% per annum in 1997; 13.3% per annum in 198; from 1985 to 1998; 10% per annum in 1999 to 198; however, the Defendant continued to increase the interest rate for commercial bank deposits from 1999 to 200.5% per annum in 205 to 30.45% per annum in 197.

(7) In 2005, the Defendant carried out the repair work for the Salna and swimming pool, the work to replace Salna in 2009, the remodeling work for the main building in 201, the work to improve the parking lot environment in 2012, and the work to improve the parking lot environment in 2012. In that process, the Defendant spent 4.3 billion won as the construction cost.

(8) At the operating committee of the instant sports center held on September 2005, the defendant should not make the increase of membership fees due to the construction of facilities only to the general members, and in 2006, the special member's membership fees should also be increased. In the operating committee held on January 15, 2008, the non-party chairperson sent to the defendant a letter stating that "the non-party's special member is exempted from annual fees and the burden should be transferred to the general members comprehensively due to the exemption of the general member from the asset cost due to the extension of facilities."

(9) The Defendant appears to attract at least 600 special members. At the time of opening the instant sports center, the regular members among the special members, among the general members, were paid the subscription fees of KRW 4,610,00, KRW 2,305, and KRW 00, KRW 1,665,000, and KRW 1,665,000, respectively. (10) The Defendant, on July 13, 2012, demanded the special members to pay annual annual annual annual membership fees of KRW 1,910,000, or to pay KRW 4,775,000,000, regardless of regular members and their family members.

B) Examining the aforementioned factual basis and the following circumstances revealed therefrom in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s additional imposition of membership fees on the special members of the sports center of this case goes beyond the objective reasonable scope. (1) The producer price index was 1.6 times between 1985 and 2004, and the consumer price index was 2.4 times per annum, and the Defendant did not demand the increase of membership fees on the ground that the annual price increase or the rate of 10% per annum was 75% per annum, even though the annual interest rate of 10%, which was 6% per annum, was decreased by the price increase or the rate of 6% per annum to the special members. This is due to the fact that there was an agreement between the Defendant and the general members that the general members did not request the increase of annual membership fees from the 6th general members to the 6th general members in the process of calculating the amount of annual membership fees from the date of the instant special members’ offering of funds necessary for the opening of the sports center.

(4) The Defendant spent the construction cost of KRW 4.3 billion in the course of performing various construction works between 2005 and 2012. However, if 60 special members receive additional deposits of KRW 4,7750,000 per capita, the amount would amount to KRW 28.65 billion. (5) When four special members are enrolled at the opening of the sports center of this case as special members, the amount would be KRW 10,245,00 ( = KRW 4,610,000 + KRW 2,305,000 + KRW 2,300,000 + KRW 30,000,000 + KRW 1,665,000 for each special member + KRW 1,665,665,00 for each special member, and KRW 75,700,000 for each special member to be paid, the Defendant would not be deemed to have made any additional payment of the membership fee.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that membership fees imposed by the Defendant on special members did not deviate from the objective reasonable scope, solely based on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on membership fees in a membership sports facility use agreement, thereby adversely affecting the remaining judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds

D. Meanwhile, among the construction cost of a large amount of KRW 4.3 billion claimed by the Defendant, expenses unrelated to the increase and remodeling of facilities, such as replacing the aged facilities or repairing the damaged facilities, etc. In addition, among the construction cost of KRW 4.3 billion claimed by the Defendant, are deemed to include expenses irrelevant to the increase and remodeling of facilities. The lower court’s examination and determination as to the amount of expenses related to the increase and remodeling of facilities

In addition, it is necessary to examine how the Defendant prepared expenses incurred in maintaining and repairing the sports center from the opening of the sports center of this case to the year 2005.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo

Justices Kim Jong-il

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Il-san