beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 49,00,000 and 6% per annum from October 18, 2012 to November 9, 2015.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
In light of the fact that there is no dispute, and the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's 1-4, the defendants operated the Daegmon Emba club (hereinafter "the instant golf club") as a club business, and the plaintiff paid 70 million won a membership fee and joined the instant golf club as a member (member number B) around July 2004, and according to the rules of the instant golf club, if a member expresses his/her intention to withdraw from the membership, the plaintiff determined to return the membership fee to the member who expressed his/her intention to withdraw from the membership, and on October 17, 2012, the plaintiff expressed his/her intention to withdraw from the golf club.
Judgment
According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to return the above amount of KRW 70 million to the plaintiff who is a member of the golf course of this case. Since the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to return the amount of KRW 21 million out of the membership fee from the defendants, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 49 million from October 18, 2012 to November 9, 2015, which is the day following the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from the next day to the day of full payment.
(However, the Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case before the amendment, but according to the amended Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the Plaintiff shall order the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015, and thus, the above excess portion claim cannot be accepted). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted for reasons within the above scope of recognition.