Whether an assertion of set-off against a claim pending in a separate lawsuit is permissible in a subsequent suit (affirmative)

In a case where a lawsuit based on the same claim as an automatic claim is filed separately at the time of the submission of a defense of offset, the fact-finding court as the fact-finding court’s fact-finding court, in order to deliberate and determine on the same opportunity as the previous and the subsequent suit, it is desirable to prevent conflict and peace of res judicata and promote the economy in the litigation by attempting the transfer, pleading, consolidation, etc., and thereby, it is desirable to prevent conflict and peace of res judicata and promote the economy in the litigation. However, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that the allegation of offset in the

Article 202(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 492 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da848 delivered on November 30, 1965 (No. 13-2, 267) Supreme Court Decision 75Da103 Delivered on June 24, 1975 (Gong1975, 8583)

Cheongjin Environment Co., Ltd.

1. The term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term.

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na46869 delivered on December 16, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The court below held that the plaintiff is liable to pay 54,400,000 won to the plaintiff the price for the goods due to the violation of the contract and infringement of trademark rights in the lawsuit of damages claim No. 98 Ma4390, which the defendant raised against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to deposit the amount equivalent to the above price for the goods as defect deposit in preparing the agreement on the delivery of the goods of this case. The above defect deposit was not yet due to the expiration of the period of return. The first defense of the defendant that the above defect bond has not yet arrived at the time of the closing of argument of the court below, and it is clear that the above defect bond has already been over the period of warranty, and the defendant has no authority to deposit the above price for the goods as defect deposit. The defendant did not have any obligation to pay the above amount more than the above price for the goods due to the plaintiff's failure to pay damages due to the plaintiff's breach of the contract and infringement of trademark rights, the prior notice on the goods supplied by the prosecutor and the defect liability of this case.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and the defendant's defense are just and acceptable, and there is no error that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, according to the records, it is evident that at the time of the defendant's submission of the defense of the offset as above in this case, the defendant had been continuing to file a separate lawsuit based on the claim identical to the above automatic claim, namely, the plaintiff's breach of contract and infringement of trademark rights. In such a case, the court in charge of fact-finding as the court in charge of the lawsuit in this case has been desirable to prevent the conflict of res judicata and the difference between transfer and pleading, and promote the economy of litigation by trying to deliberate and determine the above lawsuit and the lawsuit in this case in the same opportunity. However, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the defense of the lawsuit continuing to be a separate lawsuit is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 63Da848, Nov. 30, 1965; 75Da103, Jun. 24, 1975).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)