The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Based on adopted evidence, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s offset cannot be deemed as an abuse of the right to a set-off, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s assertion that the set-off was against the good faith principle or constitutes an abuse of rights against set-off; (b) the Defendant’s allegation that the set-off was against the Defendant’s aforementioned set-off or constitutes an abuse of rights against the good faith principle; and (c) the Defendant did not confirm that the amount of the instant deposit was paid to the Defendant; or (d) it is impossible to confirm the relationship between the Plaintiff and D related to the amount of the instant deposit, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s set-off cannot be deemed an abuse of the good faith principle or the right to a set-off.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.