2013Da71999 Return of deposit

A

United States Development Corporation

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2012Na5654 Decided August 30, 2013

February 12, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Supreme Court Decision 2013Da64984 Decided January 29, 2015 rendered the following judgments.

Although the Defendant’s obligation to return the Plaintiff’s membership fee and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the Plaintiff’s membership fee, which is operated with the deposit membership system, are in simultaneous performance relationships, the Defendant’s refusal of the refund of the membership fee on the ground that the Plaintiff did not return the membership fee, the purpose of which lies in preventing the Defendant from double payment. The Defendant’s refusal of the refund of the membership fee is that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the Plaintiff’s membership fee and the Defendant’s right to claim the refund of the membership fee are not in a bilateral contract obligation under Article 536 of the Civil Act or a quid pro quo relationship similar thereto. Therefore, even in a simultaneous performance relationship, each of the above obligations means that the Plaintiff may refuse the payment of the membership fee without the refund of the membership fee. Accordingly, even if the same is in a simultaneous performance relationship, it means that the Defendant has the right to refuse the return of the membership fee without the Plaintiff’s membership fee, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant has the legitimate demand for payment from the Defendant.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning and determined as follows.

A. On September 27, 2010, five years after the date on which the Plaintiff was issued membership rights, seeking the return of the membership rights, and the due date arrived, and the Defendant returned the said membership fees to the Plaintiff only after the Defendant went to April 14, 201, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay for the said membership fees from September 28, 201 to April 14, 201, following the date on which the Plaintiff’s claim for refund was filed.

B. However, in light of the fact that golf membership agreement in a deposit system provides for the presentation and submission of membership cards in the event of the issuance of membership cards to the members at the time of the use of a golf course or the succession of membership, etc., golf membership is a right to pay a normal high amount of membership fees and obtain them, and the price of golf membership is formed and traded separately through a general exchange, and at the time of such transaction, the membership certificates are distributed together with membership rights, the Plaintiff’s submission of membership cards and the Defendant’s obligation to return membership fees are in a simultaneous performance relationship. Unless there is any assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff fulfilled or provided the Defendant with the obligation to submit membership cards in a concurrent performance relationship, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for delay of the obligation to return the membership deposit to the Defendant.

3. According to the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff’s duty to submit membership cards and the Defendant’s duty to return membership fees are in a simultaneous performance relationship, they merely mean that the Plaintiff may refuse to pay membership fees if the Plaintiff did not provide membership cards, and even if the Plaintiff did not provide membership cards, it cannot be deemed unlawful. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for delay of performance from the date following September 27, 2010 upon receipt of a request for return of membership fees from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is in violation of the opinion expressed in the above Supreme Court decision, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of the court below.

4. Therefore, 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 Shin Young-young

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-tae, Counsel for the defendant

A person shall be appointed.