[계금(본소·반소)][집16(3)민,066]
Cases of misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of a set-off
The effect of set-off shall be deemed retroactively extinguished when the opposing claim can be set-off.
Article 493 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Attorney Lee Won-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant)
Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1
Defendant 2, Counsel for the defendant 2
Daegu High Court Decision 67Na242, 243 delivered on March 13, 1968
Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendants is reversed;
The case portion is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1
Even if examining the original judgment by comparing the records, it cannot be seen that there was an error of logic or rule of experience in the preparation of evidence and fact-finding cited in the debate paper, and therefore, the argument is groundless.
The Defendant’s Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1
According to the original judgment and the whole purport of the party's oral argument, in the case of this case, the members of the fraternity, without considering the financial resources of other members of the fraternity, shall be bound to pay the fraternity to the fraternity, and the members of the fraternity shall be bound to pay the fraternity to the fraternity, and even if the records are recorded, the original judgment cannot be found to have acknowledged facts without any evidence, or there was a misunderstanding of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, nor shall there be any errors of incomplete deliberation or the lack of reasons. Therefore, the argument is groundless.
The third ground of appeal is examined as follows:
According to the facts duly established by the original judgment, in the event that the defendant did not pay the payment of the payment of the payment No. 5 in the present case after receiving the payment, the defendant's pregnant women agreed to pay the damages at the rate of No. 10 per month, and the defendants asserted that there exists custom such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the arguments are groundless.
The second ground of appeal No. 2
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since defendant 1 entered into two old units of this case 5 and 13, and the payment amount of 1,00,000 won from 5 old units of this case to 10 times each month until August 26, 1966, but did not pay an amount of 6,00 won each month from 10 times the last 20 times of the following month, the court below agreed to pay damages at the rate of 10% each month if the above order of 10,00 won was delayed between the plaintiff who is the owner of this case and the above order of 13, and the above amount of damages at the rate of 10,000 won each time after 10,000 won were added to the above order of set-off damages from 10,000 won each time of the above order of set-off against the plaintiff. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining amount of damages from 10,500,000 won each of the above order of set-off.
Therefore, the above part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal is assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)