Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2017 Ma100357 dated August 2, 2019 authorize the final claim inspection judgment.

The costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is not specifically distinguished from the status inside and outside the Defendant’s rehabilitation procedure, and is “Defendant”. The company established on November 25, 2005 and operated C (the previous name was “D” and “E” but only “E” in this case). The Plaintiff is a member who acquired the right of regular membership of the instant golf course and used the instant golf course.

B. Defendant’s establishment 1) F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

(D) On December 24, 1994, the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (hereinafter “Sports Facilities Act”) provides for the Gyeonggi-do Governor with the trade name “D”.

A) Pursuant to the registration of sports facility business. F was registered in accordance with the instant golf course as a sports facility business. The instant golf course operated a golf course business by inviting its members, and the instant golf course defaulted on November 1, 1997. Of the instant golf course, the instant golf course sites of 18 holes and buildings, such as a club club, etc. (hereinafter “instant golf course site”).

2) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) established G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) by contributing to KRW 58 million per person for the purpose of winning the instant golf course site, etc. among its members. G purchased the instant golf course site, etc. at the above auction procedure, and fully pays the auction price on August 13, 2001. After completing the registration of transfer of ownership in its name on March 25, 2002, it was handed over the instant golf course site, etc. from April 2002 to April 25, 2002, and operated the instant golf course under the name of “D”.

3) Meanwhile, F on October 21, 2003, H and I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H, etc.”)

) The remaining nine holess of the instant golf course and all rights following the registration of the instant golf course business (hereinafter “instant golf course business rights, etc.”) to the Plaintiff.

A dispute over the reversion of the right to operate the instant golf course lawfully between G that acquired the ownership of the instant golf course site, etc. upon transfer and H that that acquired the instant golf course business right, etc.