[매매대금반환등][미간행]
The reason why the status of the person entitled to set-off is legally protected and the exercise of the right to set-off is against the good faith principle or constitutes abuse of rights.
Articles 2 and 492 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2002Da59481 delivered on April 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1156)
Plaintiff
National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yoon Tae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na86524 decided October 12, 2012
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In general, a set-off can be generally established in cases where a claim in which a set-off exists concurrently between the parties. Such a set-off is legally protected. The purpose of a set-off system’s legal protection is to ensure smooth and equitable disposal of both claims by settling a claim in conflict with each other by means of simple payment of debt and debt. As for a person who intends to exercise the right of set-off, the existence of a set-off claim is de facto performing a function as a security for an automatic claim, and thus, the reasonable expectation of the parties to the secured function is worth legally protected. Therefore, in light of the purpose and circumstance of acquiring a claim subject to set-off or bearing a debt, and the specific and individual circumstances leading up to the exercise of the right of set-off, the exercise of the right of set-off should not be permitted if it deviates from the purpose and function of the set-off system as above and there is no value to legally protect the right of set-off, and it does not require any subjective requirement required in cases of abuse of general rights in light of the aforementioned grounds that restrict the exercise of the right of set-off (see, etc.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the offset against the deposit claim of this case by the defendant is taking advantage of the benefits of recovery of claims that the plaintiff did not have originally anticipated under the plaintiff's sacrifice, and it is not worth legally protected because it deviates from the purpose and function of the offset system, and it is contrary to the principle of good faith or abused the right of offset in relation to the plaintiff. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the abuse of rights, the provisional seizure and set-off, or
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.
Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)