Ms. Liu went to the gym to purchase private fitness courses, and the gym claimed that she could become a "micro shareholder" and "business partner" of the store. In addition to enjoying fitness courses, she also enjoyed multiple value-added benefits. After Ms. Liu spent over 110000 yuan to purchase more than 500 classes, the store suddenly notified the closure. Ms. Liu's request for a refund was refused and she filed a lawsuit with the court. Recently, the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court tried this case. From September to November 2021, Ms. Liu signed a membership value-added service agreement under the promotion of a gym store called "A" (a brand under Company A). She successively purchased 96 "Micro Shareholders Fat Burning Classes" and paid more than 11000 yuan, and purchased 456 "Business Partners Super Classes" and paid 100000 yuan. The party signing the contract with her was Company B. In addition to detailed provisions on how store "micro shareholders" can receive profit feedback, the service agreement also stipulates that "micro shareholders" and "business partners" are not true shareholders in the company law or true partners in the partnership enterprise law, do not enjoy equity/shares, do not contribute capital, and do not bear losses. Ms. Liu only attended one fitness class and did not receive any profit feedback from the store. A few months later, the store suddenly notified to close and disband, and could only attend classes at other stores ten kilometers away or online. Ms. Liu sued Company A and Company B in court, demanding that both companies jointly refund the remaining course fees. Company A claims that the value-added service agreement was signed with Company B and has nothing to do with it. Company B claims that Ms. Liu paid the "investment payment" and does not have the right to a refund. After trial, the court found that according to the content of the membership value-added service agreement signed by both parties, the essence of the agreement is still a service contract for purchasing fitness courses, rather than a shareholding behavior. In this case, the original gym had already closed and dissolved, and going to other stores of the same company ten kilometers away for classes or online classes was considered a change in the performance address and method, which made it impossible for Ms. Liu to achieve the original contract purpose of attending classes offline nearby. Therefore, Ms. Liu has the right to terminate the contract and request a refund of the remaining course fees. Therefore, the court ruled that Company A and Company B jointly refund Ms. Liu's remaining course fees. (New Society)