1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 113,706,31 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from April 9, 2014 to July 23, 2015.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except in the following cases, the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this case shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of offsetting

A. The Defendant’s defense and the Plaintiff’s defense 1) The Defendant offsets the instant retirement benefit claim against the Plaintiff’s instant retirement benefit claim by using the instant retirement benefit claim as the automatic claim. Even if the instant retirement benefit claim falls under the prohibition of seizure, the Plaintiff asserts that set-off may be made based on the special agreement for set-off of the Bank Credit Transaction Basic Agreement to which the instant retirement benefit claim applies, even if it falls under the instant retirement benefit claim, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Retirement Benefits Act, the Plaintiff is prohibited from seizure of the entire retirement benefit claim pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Act, and thus, the Defendant’s set-off is entirely prohibited, or seizure is prohibited against 1/2 of the instant retirement benefit claim pursuant to Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act, and thus, the Defendant’s set-off of the part equivalent to 1/2 of the instant retirement benefit claim is prohibited, and constitutes a set-off special agreement, not falling under the set-off agreement.

However, the purport that it is invalid because it is unfair terms and conditions is reconvened.

B. 1) Where the instant retirement benefit claim constitutes a claim prohibited from transfer under the Retirement Benefits Act (A) obligor’s monetary claim against a third party obligor is prohibited from transfer pursuant to the statutory provisions, barring any special circumstance, the said claim cannot be commercialized even if it is seized. Therefore, the eligibility for seizure is not possible.

However, Article 7 (1) of the Retirement Benefits Act is applicable.