[1] In a case where a party to whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has rendered a new lawsuit against the other party to the previous lawsuit, whether there is a benefit in the protection of rights in the subsequent lawsuit (negative)

[2] In a case where a transferee succeeds to the obligations to the existing members along with the management system under the public law relating to the authorization and permission of a business pursuant to Article 27(1) of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, whether the transferor is exempted from the obligations to the existing members (affirmative), and in a case where a membership contract is terminated upon termination or termination or termination, but there remains any rights and obligations arising from an agreement or reinstatement made between the sports facility business entity and its members, whether the rights and obligations are succeeded to (affirmative) / Whether the transferee under the above provision constitutes a successor under Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (affirmative)

[1] Articles 216, 218, and 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit] Articles 453 and 454 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 4 and 27(1) of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da74764 Decided April 14, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2015Da222722 Decided June 9, 2016 (Gong2016Ha, 917)

Hak Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Jin-si, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Copi Global Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Song-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na26025 decided January 29, 2016

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 deemed 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 argument in the prior suit or the final and conclusive judgment after the closing of argument, is a successor after the closing of argument, and thus, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the prior suit is excessive, and thus there is no benefit in the plaintiff to institute the subsequent suit

According to the records, the Plaintiff entered into a membership contract with AIMWD (hereinafter “AIMD”), and terminated it, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment on February 1, 2013 against AIMD by filing a lawsuit for refund of membership fees with 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 provides that “If a business of sports facilities is transferred, a transferee of the rights and obligations arising from the registration or report of the relevant sports facilities, including the matters agreed upon between the transferor and the members, shall succeed to the rights and obligations of the transferee of the relevant sports facilities.” This, along with the purport of maintaining the management system under the public law for the transferor established in relation to the authorization and permission of a business regardless of the change of the business entity, is a special provision with the intent of protecting the interests of the majority members who established the relationship with the transferor, and there is no special restriction on the qualifications of members under the Sports Facilities Act, and the membership agreement is established only with the agreement and does not constitute the requirement for establishing the payment of the membership fee, the transferee succeeds to the obligations of the existing members along with the management system under the public law related to the authorization and permission of a business, and the transferor is exempted from the obligations of the existing members. Even if the membership agreement was terminated or terminated, the agreement or obligation under Article 27(1)26(2)1) of the Civil Procedure Act can also be seen as the transferee’s.

Thus, the defendant constitutes a successor after the closing of argument, and thus res judicata of the above final judgment between the plaintiff and Eul L&D extends to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff is to execute it with the succession execution clause granted pursuant to the above final judgment, and there is no benefit to bring a lawsuit against the defendant again. Thus, the lawsuit of this case should have been dismissed in an unlawful manner.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the merits as legitimate, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest of lawsuit in performance lawsuit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, 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 Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)