Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid in the following manner shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation on this case is to delete the 7th sentence No. 7 of the judgment of the first instance and the 8th sentence No. 14 of the 7th sentence; and (b) other than adding the following 2, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (c) thereby, it is to accept

2. The defendant raises a defense that the defendant offsets the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff against the amount equal to that of the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment by using the automatic claim against the prohibition of adjustment according to the inheritance shares.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff has a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 273 million against the Defendant, and the Defendant has a claim for payment of KRW 55.2 million against the Plaintiff based on the inheritance shares.

However, the period of repayment of the defendant's claim prohibited from conciliation is July 31, 2008, and the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment, which is the passive claim, arrives at the due date on June 1, 2008, which is the date of the establishment of the claim. Thus, both of the original defendant's claims reached the due date on the same day-off date after they reached the due date on July 31, 2008, which is the date of repayment of the automatic claim.

Furthermore, it is clear in the record that the preparatory document dated November 20, 2017, on which the Defendant expressed his/her intent to offset the Plaintiff with the claim for return of unjust enrichment within the amount equal to that of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on November 21, 2017, was served on the Plaintiff on November 21, 2017. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment, the principal amounting to KRW 5.2 million, which is retroactively from the above set-off date, expires within the scope equal

(As seen earlier, the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 43 billion at the Plaintiff’s request incurred legal interest or delay damages on the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment from October 26, 2010, which occurred, and thus only the principal claim out of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment shall be offset).

The theory of conclusion is based on the theory.