손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as follows: (a) it is stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the determination as to the Plaintiffs’ additional assertion of the first instance court; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. 1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and Pyeongtaek Ho was established prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, and the Defendant’s obligation to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiffs is a condition precedent. Since the conditions for the repayment of the lease deposit have been fulfilled after the recommendation of Pyeongtaek Ho was declared bankrupt, the obligation to return the lease deposit shall be borne after the declaration of bankruptcy. In such a case, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Consolidated Accounting Act”).
The purpose of Article 422 Subparag. 1, not Article 422 Subparag. 1, but Article 417, is to prevent a set-off, if a bankruptcy creditor permits a set-off of any debt borne by him/her after the declaration of bankruptcy, the purport of Article 422 Subparag. 1 of the Consolidated Bankruptcy Act is to allow the bankruptcy creditor to be paid in preference to other bankruptcy creditors, and thereby to prevent it from being fair among the bankruptcy creditors. Since the Plaintiffs’ claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant is entitled to be paid in preference to other creditors under Article 415 of the Consolidated Bankruptcy Act, the Plaintiffs paid the remainder after deducting the amount of the lease deposit that the Defendant would receive from the Defendant during the process of paying the agreed amount for the conversion of
This goes against Article 422 subparagraph 1 of the same Act.
subsection (b) of this section.
3. The act of deducting the deposit equivalent to the lease deposit from the instant agreement for conversion for sale in lots is not the sole act of offsetting, but the “contract for sale in lots” is the premise of offsetting, which is the sole act.