The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that the Defendant’s defense against D’s Defendant’s claim for a loan owed by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), which offsets the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against D’s Defendant for the entire claim for return of unjust enrichment, was well-grounded, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the abuse of right of offset on the ground that the Defendant’s exercise of right of offset is difficult to be deemed to deviate from the purpose and function of the offset system or to be legally protected in relation to the Plaintiff

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the standards for abuse of the right of offset, restriction on exercise of the right of offset, the collection obligee’s ability and duty to collect, etc.

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 on the bench.