2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is that it is identical to the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the following changes and additions, and thus, cites this case as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420

2. Matters to be modified and added; and

O. Each of "$ 24,675,898" shall be changed to "$ 24,675,898" on the 3rd, 13th, 6th, 2, 19, and 20th, 3rd, 3rd, 6675,898.

O. On Chapter 4, Section 15 of the first instance judgment, the London Maritime Arbitration Committee shall add “as of April 2010” to the following:

o. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance from 5 to 10 pages 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the "whether the rehabilitation claim of this case is extinguished due to the defendant's offset" is modified as follows.

F. Whether the rehabilitation claim of this case is extinguished due to the defendant's offset

1) Facts of recognition

On February 12, 2010, the Defendant renounced the benefit of time for the obligation corresponding to the amount of the instant rehabilitation claim with the permission of the court, and agreed on February 12, 2010 to offset the amount of hire and damage claims payable to the Defendant on an automatic basis with the automatic claim, and on February 17, 2010 and February 22, 2010, the above declaration of intention has been delivered to the Defendant on an express election. The provisional attachment decision of this case was delivered to the Defendant on March 31, 2010, each of the instant preliminary claims reached the Plaintiff on March 31, 200, and all of the disputes between the Defendant and the charterer on each vessel’s charter agreement including ○○○○, and the maritime arbitration committee, on April 4, 2010, agreed to refer the amount of the said preliminary claims to the arbitration arbitration committee, which had been recognized by the Defendant on March 1, 201 as the total amount of the damages claim of the Defendant 181.

2) The governing law of the instant set-off

In the instant lawsuit, there is no dispute between the parties that the automatic claim and the passive claim asserted by the Defendant as the counterclaim for a set-off occurred in a time charter party with the English law as the governing law. The requirements for set-off in this case should be determined, in principle, by the governing law of the claim itself, inasmuch as the requirements for set-off fall under the issue of validity of the claim itself as one of the grounds for the extinguishment of the claim, such as repayment, deposit, etc., such as repayment, deposit, etc., and thus, the requirements for set-off in this case should be determined in accordance with the English common law. Furthermore, as long as the rehabilitation procedure against the Defendant was conducted in the Republic of Korea pursuant to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Act”), domestic law applies to the procedure and effect of set-off on the rehabilitation claim in this case pursuant to the “Principle of the Suspension of the Bankruptcy Act,” the requirements for set-off should be additionally approved by the court pursuant

3) The permissible scope of the offset of this case

A) As to offset on February 2010

According to the English common law, the governing law of the instant set-off requirement, the set-off ought to be determined to the extent that the establishment and scope of the claim becomes final and conclusive at the time of exercise, and in particular, in the case of damage compensation claims, set-off can be made after the court or the arbitral institution became final and conclusive (hereinafter “judicial final and conclusive”). In addition, as seen earlier, the court’s permission should be obtained pursuant to Article 131 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

In light of the above legal principles in this case, the defendant's automatic claim for the unpaid charterage may be offset at the time when each due date comes to its nature, and the damage claim arising from the shipbuilding may be offset only after April 2010, which is the time when the English arbitral award was rendered. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in the evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 12, the payment period for the unpaid charterage claim may be acknowledged in the case of the subparagraph 0, before February 18, 2009 in the case of the subparagraph 0, and before January 31, 2009 in the case of the subparagraph 1, 200 and the subparagraph 1, 31, 2009 in the case of the subparagraph 1, 2009, the payment period for the unpaid charterage claim becomes effective only within the scope of USD 4,562,448.15, which is the amount equivalent to the unpaid charterage claim, and the offset against the damage claim in accordance with the judicial confirmation requirements is not permitted.

B) As to offset on December 15, 201

(1) On December 15, 2011, the Defendant made to the Plaintiff an automatic claim amounting to USD 18,891,346.14 in total for the unpaid charterage claim and the damage claim due to the shipbuilding base line, and USD 8,389,805.32 (=$24,675,898, and USD 0.34) in which the amount can be collected in money out of the rehabilitation claim of the preferred vessels is set off as the passive claim, and expressed his/her intention of set-off on an equal amount. At the time of the set-off, the Defendant’s automatic claim was wholly confirmed at the time of the first set-off, and the period of the first set-off against the Defendant had already arrived at the time of the commencement of the rehabilitation decision against the Defendant, and thus, it is determined that the above set-off claim was retroactively extinguished in whole retroactively at the time of the set-off due to the above set-off.

(2) On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the provisional attachment of this case was served on the Defendant, and that the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff as a set-off on December 15, 201, which was later served on the Defendant.

In determining the content and interpreting the meaning of foreign laws to be applied to a foreign case, the meaning and content of the foreign law shall be applied as it is interpreted in its own country. However, if it is impossible to confirm the content of the foreign law because the case or the materials relating to the interpretation standards have not been submitted during the litigation process, the court shall not determine the meaning and content of the law in accordance with the general legal interpretation standards (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu19470 delivered on February 22, 1991). Meanwhile, Article 498 of the Civil Act provides that "the third-party debtor who has been ordered to prohibit payment shall not oppose the creditor who requested the order to set off the claims subsequently acquired." In light of the purport and purpose of the set-off system, purpose and function of the set-off system, and the interests of the parties concerned where the third-party debtor who received the order of seizure or provisional seizure has a opposing claim against the debtor, the court shall not have the effect of set-off against the creditor, and where the third-party debtor has a opposing claim against the debtor at the time of seizure (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 21215).

In light of these legal principles in the instant case, on March 31, 2010, the automatic claims at the time of the instant provisional seizure were due 1) and on the other hand, the passive claims were merely rehabilitation claims repaid in accordance with the rehabilitation plan and they were merely rehabilitation claims, and both claims were deemed to have been offset. Therefore, the Defendant, who is the third debtor, may set off against the Plaintiff, who is the creditor of provisional seizure. The Plaintiff’s

(3) On the other hand, in order to determine whether to oppose a set-off, the Plaintiff asserts that the time of judicial confirmation of the automatic claim is after a provisional attachment. However, the judicial confirmation merely refers to the qualification for set-off by the owner of the automatic claim, and whether it is possible to oppose the provisional attachment of the passive claim should be determined in accordance with the legal principles of the en banc Decision 201Da45521 Decided February 16, 2012. In particular, in this case where the Plaintiff was subject to the provisional attachment and seizure of the passive claim pursuant to the Civil Execution Act and claimed a collection amount against the Defendant who is a third debtor based on the provisional attachment and seizure of the passive claim, and accordingly, the above provisional attachment may be decided in accordance with the Civil Execution Act and the Civil Act, so the issue of whether it is possible to block the Defendant’s allegation shall be decided in accordance with our Civil Execution Act and the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s argument does not constitute a separate defense by extending

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (the plaintiff's application for resumption of argument is without merit as seen earlier).

Judges Yellow-Hahn (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong

1) In the case of the Plaintiff’s Do, ○○, and each subparagraph of △△△, the Plaintiff is a person who has reached the maturity of each automatic claim on February 31, 2009 (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s reference document on October 15, 2012).