Hello, this is Attorney Eom Sang-yoon at Cheongchul Law Firm.

Disputes between golf club members and operators over fee increases or changes to member benefits are common. In membership-based golf clubs in particular, operators often raise usage fees or modify the content of member benefits through board resolutions or amendments to the club rules. There has been longstanding practical debate over whether such changes automatically apply to existing members.

The Supreme Court recently ruled (Decision 2024Da251838, May 8, 2026) that when an operator of a deposit-based membership golf club changes usage fees or benefits for unnamed (bearer) members pursuant to the club rules, and such changes constitute significant modifications to the fundamental status of members, they have no effect on existing members without their individual consent. Today, we will examine the key content and practical implications of this ruling.

[Facts and Issues]

The golf club at issue is a deposit-based membership golf club located in Hoengseong County, Gangwon Province, and the defendant is the operating company. In 2013, a third-party company entered into a VVIP corporate full membership agreement with the defendant with a 600 million KRW deposit. The membership granted the benefit that "in addition to one registered member, three bearer members shall be treated as members, and the same fee as full members shall apply to bearer members even when the full member is not present."

In 2019, the plaintiff acquired the corporate full membership from the third-party company and submitted a name change application and membership application to the defendant.

However, through board and operating committee resolutions, the defendant changed the golf course usage conditions to ① increase the usage fees for VVIP full members, and ② apply separate fees rather than the same fees as full members to bearer members when the full member is not present (hereinafter the "Changes at Issue"). The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant seeking confirmation of membership status entitled to the same fees as before, asserting the invalidity of the Changes at Issue.

The core issue in this case is "whether the Changes at Issue, made through the defendant's board resolution, take effect against the plaintiff, an existing member, without the plaintiff's individual consent."

[Lower Court's Judgment]

The lower court held that the Changes at Issue could apply to the plaintiff even without individual consent, reasoning that: ① the defendant had a need to change the golf course usage conditions within a reasonable scope, ② members could anticipate that the conditions at the time of joining might change in the future, ③ it was difficult to conclude that the Changes at Issue constituted a significant change to member qualifications, and ④ the operating committee representing the members had approved the changes.

[Supreme Court's Judgment]

However, the Supreme Court found the lower court's judgment difficult to accept, reversed the lower court's judgment, and remanded the case. The main reasoning is as follows:

• The legal relationship in a deposit-based membership country club constitutes contractual rights and obligations between members and the operating company. For the club rules established by the company for operational needs to become part of the contract between members and the company, explicit or implicit agreement to incorporate them into the contract is required. Furthermore, once the club rules have been incorporated as contract content, even if the company unilaterally amends them, the amended rules cannot apply to existing members without their individual consent. This is especially true for content that brings about significant changes to a member's fundamental status, such as changes to the type or content of membership qualifications, even if the prior rules contained provisions authorizing amendment.

• In this case, the matter of treating bearer members as full members is an important factor considered by corporate members who pay substantial deposits when acquiring memberships. Moreover, unlike other golf courses, the defendant promoted and recruited members by advertising that applying the same fees as full members to bearer members regardless of full member attendance was a key member benefit, and the plaintiff also acquired the membership trusting these usage conditions.

• Therefore, the Changes at Issue, which differentially apply bearer member usage conditions based on full member attendance, significantly affect the plaintiff's right to use the golf course facilities under favorable conditions, which constitutes a significant change to contract content. Accordingly, they have no effect on the plaintiff without the plaintiff's individual approval or consent.

[Practical Implications]

This ruling provides important standards for the practical operation of deposit-based membership golf clubs and the protection of member rights. The following points should be noted in practice.

First, golf club operators must clearly recognize that merely having provisions in the club rules authorizing changes to usage conditions does not justify all such changes. In particular, benefits that were emphasized during member recruitment and served as key factors in the membership pricing (e.g., bearer member treatment, companion discounts, priority reservation rights) are likely to be evaluated as "significant changes to the fundamental status of members" when later reduced or modified. Even if collective decision-making procedures such as operating committee resolutions are followed, the effect may be denied without the individual consent of existing members.

Additionally, when raising usage fees, golf club operators must carefully review whether the scope of the increase falls within an objectively reasonable range. If fees are set arbitrarily without establishing grounds for the increase based on objective data such as inflation rates, increases in operating costs, and fee levels of comparable golf courses, operators may face disputes including member claims for refunds of the increased portion. In particular, for corporate memberships with substantial deposits, it is necessary to verify the content of the member benefits that contributed to the formation of the price.

From the operator's perspective, it is desirable to follow the procedures required for changes to member status, keeping in mind that membership status in membership-based golf clubs has a quid pro quo relationship with the costs paid, such as deposits.