beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the calculation table of 15 to 6, 10, 10, 521 won in the judgment of the court of first instance (the part of the judgment on the scope of offsetting) shall be used as follows; and (b) the part of the 6th 14, “197,08,521 won” in the 197,08,768 won is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The remaining period of the Plaintiff’s loan balance claim against the Defendant during the set-off scope arrives on March 2, 2015, and the Defendant’s repayment period of the Defendant’s compensation claim against the Plaintiff arrives on February 25, 2015, which is the date of tort. Thus, both claims were set-off on March 2, 2015. Thus, the Defendant’s delivery of the preparatory document as of December 1, 2015, stating the Defendant’s declaration of intent to offset the Plaintiff’s loan balance claim (i.e., automatic claim) against the amount equal to that of the Plaintiff’s loan balance (i.e., the claim) with the above claim for consolation money (i., the claim for consolation money) and damages for delay remaining after March 3, 2015, which is the date of set-off.
(1) On an offset date: ① Automatic Credit (Written Claim) (2) The balance after set-off appropriation (i.e., the sum of KRW 1,232 [the sum of KRW 1,50,000 and KRW 1,232 for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 25, 2015 to March 2, 2015] 198,590,000 KRW 197,08,768,768 won after set-off appropriation (i.e., the balance of the loan in this case)
3. As a result, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case against the defendant is justified within the above recognition scope and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance which cited only "197,08,521 won which falls short of the above recognition amount and damages for delay thereof" is unfair, but only the defendant appealed the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant in this case.