1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. As to the case of application for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2018 Chicago10180, this Court

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is recognized as legitimate even if the purport of the entire argument of this court is neglected.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the decision that the defendant newly asserted in the appellate court as to the newly asserted portion as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Judgment on the defendant's new argument

A. The first promissory note No. 1 of this case’s assertion arrives at the due date of the issuance of the certificate of set-off as the date of the payment, and the due date of the first promissory note No. 90,000,000 won is due. The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015, and the due date has arrived as at the time when the Defendant served on the Plaintiff by applying for a compulsory auction against the Plaintiff. Since the claim No. 20,000,000 won for each of the instant payment forms a set-off against the equal amount due to the arrival of the due date at that time, the Defendant declared the intention of set-off on an equal amount by the delivery of the petition of this case’s appeal, and the Defendant’s claim based on the first promissory note No. 1 of this case’s payment note No. 70,000 won against the Plaintiff was retroactively extinguished, and the Plaintiff prepared the second promissory note No. 20,000 won for the last balance.

B. As determined by the judgment of the court of first instance, the claims based on the instant bill of payment were due on the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with non-fixed bonds, and the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case became due on December 20, 2017, when the plaintiff expressed an intention of offset. Unlike the Defendant’s assertion, the time when the decision to commence compulsory sale of promissory notes was delivered to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2015, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, is based on the instant bill of payment, such as the claim of the instant bill of this case.