(a) set-off by the third obligor in respect of an assignment order and attachment of claims;

(b) the meaning of offset;

1. In regard to a seizure and assignment order of claims, the garnishee may set up against the entire creditor with the opposing claim that had been set-off against the debtor prior to the delivery of such order, and set-off after such order was served;

2. In this case, a set-off cannot be deemed to exist in the set-off situation, even if both claims have become due and have not yet become due, including cases where benefit of time can be waived, but the automatic claim does not arrive before the delivery of the above order.

Article 493 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da518 delivered on November 13, 1973

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na706 delivered on March 7, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of a claim attachment and assignment order, if the garnishee had a counterclaim against the debtor before the order is served, he may set up against all creditors as a set-off after the order was served, and such set-off may also include not only the case where both claims have become due but also the case where he can waive the benefit of time even if both claims have not yet arrived.

However, if the due date for the automatic claim does not arrive before the delivery of the above order, it cannot be said that there is a set-off.

However, in light of the facts duly admitted by the court below, the defendant's claims for the principal and interest of the loan against the non-party, who is the defendant's automatic claim, are due date on February 23, 1979, and since the date the assignment order was served on the defendant, who is the garnishee, was prior to the due date of the above defendant's claim, it is clear that the defendant's claims for the principal and interest of the above loan against the non-party against the non-party were not set-off.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the lawsuit is without merit because it is not necessary to determine whether or not the defendant had a loan claim against the above non-party as alleged by the defendant, and thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense is just and there is no error of misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment below, and the judgment of the main court in the land register is consistent with the purport of the judgment of the court below.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)