1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted a set-off: (a) terminated on January 6, 2015; and (b) re-deposited (Account Number 105-2147-2673-00) again on January 6, 2016 with an annual interest rate of 2.65% (Account Number 105-2147-2673-00); and (c) on December 30, 2014 with an annual interest rate of 2.0% (Account Number 105-222-0363-06); and (d) on January 6, 2016 with an account number of 105-222-036-6 with an account number set-off in a notice stating the Defendant’s expression of intent of set-off, the Plaintiff asserted that the said set-off deposit was null and void as of December 215, 2015.

However, the so-called repayment, which is to be effected by a financial institution and a debtor to repay an existing debt only on a document without actual receipt of new funds, is merely an extension of the maturity of the existing debt, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da16077, Feb. 27, 1998; 2001Da5522, 55239, Nov. 13, 2001); and the time deposit on January 6, 2015 takes the form of a new deposit only on a document without actual receipt of new funds, and in fact, it is merely an extension of the maturity of the existing deposit and thus, it is deemed that the existing deposit continues to exist after the date of commencement of rehabilitation procedures.