Busan District Court sentenced the plaintiff on January 29, 2015.

2. The grounds for the court’s explanation as to this part of the argument and judgment are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “(2)-off” (from 5, 13 to 7, 6) is used as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Whether a set-off exists (2) or not, even if both parties’ obligations are in the form of a set-off, the effect of a set-off does not take effect only by itself, but also by the effect of a set-off only after the declaration of intent of set-off is waited. Thus, even if a debtor had a claim on a set-off against the other party before the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, if the debtor expressed his/her intention to set-off only after the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, it constitutes “the grounds for objection have arisen after the closing of argument,” as provided in Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act. As such, regardless of whether the parties had known the existence of the automatic claim prior to the closing of argument in the final and conclusive judgment, which is an executive title, they constitute a legitimate ground for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da25344, Nov. 24, 1998; 2005Da41443, Nov. 10, 20005).