(b) The permission of set-off against damage claims arising from an intentional tort, where the automatic claim and the passive claim have arisen in the same case;

B. An offset against damage liability arising from an intentional tort is prohibited, and the same shall also apply to the case where the damage liability arising from an intentional tort occurred in the same case, such as the case where the automatic claim was inflicted upon each other in the fighting which occurred at the same time.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the record, the court below's decision that did not consider the plaintiff's certificate of escape from the 4th and 5th main signboards is just, and there is no error of law that found the facts erroneous without making a full deliberation like the theory of lawsuit in the court below. There is no reason for the argument.

On the second ground for appeal

As the damage claim due to a tort occurs at the time of the tort and the due date comes, in the case of the passive and active damages that may occur in the future, the current market price of the tort shall be the base date for the calculation of the current damages, and in principle, it is not necessary to limit the claim to allow additional payment from the time of the tort to the time of the occurrence of the future damages. However, if the damage occurs at the time of the closure of arguments in the fact-finding court, it is not necessary to limit the claim to allow additional payment from the time of the tort. In this case, if the damage occurs before the date of the closure of arguments in the fact-finding court, the damage from the actual situation and the damages for delay after the date of the closure of arguments in the fact-finding court shall also be allowed. In this case, as in this case, the damages from the actual profits already occurred at the time of the tort shall be determined by deducting the interim interest from the time of the above time to the time of the occurrence of each future damages, it shall be permitted unless this exceeds the original method or it conflicts with this (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da31309, 14, 194, 194,2.

Therefore, as requested by the plaintiff, the court below is justified in calculating the current value of income loss by deducting the interim interest from the above standard date to the date of occurrence of losses, and damages for delay shall be ordered to be added to the above basic date after the above basic date, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit.

On the third ground for appeal

A set-off against damage claim arising from an intentional tort is prohibited (Article 496 of the Civil Act), and the same applies to cases where damage claim arising from an intentional tort occurred in the same case, such as the case where the automatic claim was inflicted on a fighting match simultaneously conducted.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the defendants' defense is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles under Article 496 of the Civil Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)