The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The court below found that non-party 2, who operated the above 10-party 3's 5's 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 1981, that the defendant's credit obligation was accumulated to 670,000,000 won among the above 10-party 2's 10-party 2's 8th 7th 7th 7th 1982, that the defendant's 10-party 2's 10th 5th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 1982, that the above 10-party 2's 10th 7th 7th 10th 7th 7th 7th 1982, that the above 10-party 2's 10th 7th 7th 10th 7th 1962's 1st 10th 7th 2th 3th 14th 2.

In light of the records, we affirm the recognition and judgment of the above facts by the court below, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or lack of reasoning.

The issue is that the amount of damages equivalent to the amount of the second collateral security claim should be calculated according to the ratio of the secured claim of the first collateral and the amount of the secured claim of the second collateral of this case to the secured claim of this case out of the successful bid price, on the premise that the secured claim of the first collateral security of the first collateral security of this case among the claim for the purchase of goods against the second collateral of this case does not reach KRW 500,000,000,000, which is the maximum debt amount. However, the argument is groundless because the first collateral security claim of this case exceeds the amount of KRW 595,00,000,000, which is already recognized by the court below.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

In its reasoning, the court below stated that, prior to the establishment of the second right to collateral security of this case, the defendant subrogated for KRW 181,70,000 out of the plaintiff's debt to the Dong in order to cancel provisional registration of the above 181,70,00 among the plaintiff's debt to the plaintiff's Dong, which was the plaintiff's creditor, before establishing the second right to collateral security of this case, the defendant shall be paid the above amount to the plaintiff. Thus, as the defendant's claim seeks, the above amount shall be offset against the amount equivalent to the above amount of the damage claim amount of the plaintiff's above recognition against the defendant, and it

Article 496 of the Civil Code provides that if the obligation is due to an intentional tort, the obligor cannot set up against the obligee by set-off. The Defendant’s damage liability against the Plaintiff is caused by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who is the subject matter, and thus it cannot be set-off by the Defendant since the Defendant’s damage liability against the Plaintiff was caused by an intentional tort. However, the lower court held that the Defendant’s damage liability due to the Defendant’s subrogation and the Plaintiff’s damage liability due to the Plaintiff’s act of set-off was extinguished by the Defendant’s expression of intent of set-off has committed an error

However, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted in the preparatory brief of October 29, 1985 that the defendant claimed compensation for damages for the tort of this case against the defendant's conjunctive claim, among the damages that the defendant is liable for compensation, that the defendant offsets 181,70,000 won by subrogation against the above non-party's above non-party's compensation, and sought payment of the remainder money. On October 29, 1985, the plaintiff voluntarily expressed his intention of offset as of the seventh day of pleading before remanding the case, and therefore, the plaintiff's damage compensation claim of this case and the claim arising from the above subrogation by the defendant was offset against the equivalent amount by the plaintiff's expression of offset intention. Therefore, it does not affect the conclusion that the plaintiff's damage compensation of this case was extinguished by the offset

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.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)