Where the automatic claim is due, the effect of the special agreement for offset agreed to offset regardless of whether the due date for the opposite claim has expired or not.

According to the overdraft agreement between the defendant bank and the (A), where the defendant's automatic claim against the company (A) is due, regardless of whether or not the counter-performance period has expired, if the counter-performance period has already expired prior to the provisional seizure of the passive claim, the defendant can offset the above automatic claim against the defendant regardless of whether or not the counter-performance period has expired.

Article 492(2) of the Civil Act

Co., Ltd.

Korea Exchange Bank

Seoul Civil History District Court (82 Gohap389)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,000,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the service day of the instant guarguing to the day after full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution, which shall be assessed against both the first and second instances.

On May 19, 1981, the payment place of the non-party 10,00,000 won at par value of the non-party 1 company was issued, and on August 28, 1981, the payment place was reported to the defendant on August 28, 1981, that the non-party 1 was subject to the withdrawal of the above Promissory Notes, and requested payment refusal and deposit of KRW 10,00,000 equivalent to the above amount of the deposited Promissory Notes as a private deposit. Meanwhile, the plaintiff, as the last holder of the above Promissory Notes, presented the payment to the defendant on the due date, but the payment was refused, on September 2, 1981, it was difficult for the above non-party 2 to receive an order of provisional seizure and assignment from the above court under the above order of 10,000,000 won for the above non-party 1 company to preserve the execution of the above Promissory Notes's claim for provisional seizure against the defendant 2.

As to the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant to pay the whole amount of the above attached claim, the defendant set-off against the non-party 1 and 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, 3-16 through 18 of evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, and 15 of the above evidence Nos. 5-1 through 15 of the above evidence Nos. 8 (C. 10 of the above attached claim) and the purport of oral argument of the above witness's testimony, the above non-party company made the above non-party company to pay the above amount to the non-party 1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-2 of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3-2, 3-2, and 5-16 of the above attached claim and the above witness's testimony without regard to the non-party 1's monthly limit of the above amount to be set-off against the non-party 1 and the defendant company's monthly limit of the above amount.

On October 8, 1981, the defendant's claim against the non-party company of the above amount of KRW 100,00,000 as a separate deposit repayment obligation against the non-party company of the above amount of KRW 100,00,000,00 and part of the claim against the non-party company of the above non-party company in arrears as of August 31, 1981 can be recognized as offset and disposed of on the same day, and notified the non-party company and the plaintiff on the same day. Thus, if there is no reason for the above recognition, the above claim against the non-party company of the above amount of the claim against the non-party company of KRW 682,307,865 (11,582,307,865,90,000,000) as of August 31, 1981, the claim against the non-party company of the above amount of claim extinguished by the offset against the defendant's claim against the non-party company of this amount of set off.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative, first of all, requested the Defendant to refuse payment of the Promissory Notes when Nonparty Co., Ltd. reported the acceptance of the Promissory Notes and deposited the amount equivalent to the Promissory Notes to the Defendant’s separate deposit account. However, even if the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes, was determined to be a legitimate holder of the Promissory Notes after the payment of the Promissory Notes, the above deposit is provided in the sense that the Defendant is able to realize rights by means of provisional seizure, etc. against the above separate deposit. Thus, this is a claim prohibited by nature or by agreement between the parties, and thus, the Defendant cannot offset the payment of the Promissory Notes issued at the place of payment by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.., Ltd., as the Plaintiff’s legal representative against the foregoing separate deposit account, the payment of the Promissory Notes should not be made by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. for the purpose of offsetting the payment of the Promissory Notes. Thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative’s claim to suspend payment of the Promissory Notes is not a set-off against the issuer’s deposit account.

In addition, in order to offset the Defendant’s obligation to return a separate deposit of KRW 100,00,000 against the non-party company, and the obligation to offset the above obligation to the non-party company against the non-party company’s defendant, the Plaintiff’s legal representative has to have both claims already arrived at the maturity date before September 2, 1981, which is the time of the provisional seizure, and the right to claim a separate deposit against the non-party company’s defendant should have been terminated at the expiration of one month after the provisional seizure, and the right to claim a separate deposit against the non-party company should be at the maturity date after September 29 of the same year. Thus, the Defendant’s declaration of intention of offset is an unlawful dispute. Accordingly, according to the above agreement between the Defendant and the non-party company, if the Defendant’s automatic claim against the non-party company is at the maturity date, regardless of the opposite claim's expiration date, the above automatic claim can be set off against the non-party company’s defendant company’s claim as set-off against the above obligation to the counter-party company’s claim.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant for the payment of the full amount of the above claim against the defendant is without merit under the premise that the above claim against the defendant still exists, and the original judgment is justified with this conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost the plaintiff, and it

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)