The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal is that the lower court’s determination that the effect of the phrase “if a pledger bears a debt due to his/her return prior to the date of consent of the pledge, he/she shall not raise any objection even if he/she exercises his/her right to offset pursuant to the set-off clause, such as a bank transaction agreement or a loan certificate,” is unlawful.

However, the court below acknowledged the validity of the offset solicitation clause of this case, but judged that the exercise of the offset right is contrary to the good faith principle, and thus, this part of the ground of appeal is merely an error of the court below on the premise different from the judgment of the court

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. A financial institution has a legitimate right to offset against the deposit obligation with the opposing claim of the deposit claimant, and there is a reasonable expectation that the claim can be recovered smoothly by exercising that right in the future. Thus, in order to hold the offset right as an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle, a financial institution must have a special reason to deem that the exercise of the offset right is not worth preserving legal protection in light of the specific individual circumstances that led to the exercise of the offset right, such as where it has a duty to cooperate or protect the other party or a third party even though it has a duty to cooperate or to protect his own legitimate right.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da28 delivered on September 9, 2005). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the following facts are revealed.

(1) C (hereinafter “C”) on April 1, 2009, the due date for repayment of KRW 1.5 billion from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) shall be April 1, 201 after April 1, 201.