Examples recognizing the counterclaim of set-off against the claim for full payment

Even if the original copy of the decision was served on the defendant upon the provisional attachment order of the claim to return the separate deposit deposit deposit deposited in the defendant bank of the above non-party company, the defendant bank may set up against the above provisional attachment retroactively at the time of set-off as set-off against the loan claims which had come due for the above non-party company.

Article 493 of the Civil Act

November 13, 1973, 73Da518 decided Nov. 13, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 10580 decided Aug. 10, 195; Supreme Court Decision 21No. 155 decided Mar. 155; Decision 493(3)434 of the Civil Code, Court Gazette 478, 7615)

Cho Chang-chul

Bank of Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (80 Gohap5229)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,00,000 won with an amount equal to five percent per annum from the day following the day when the service is made soar and the day when the service is completed.

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

On February 28, 1980, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 15,00,00 as to the above non-party 1 company as the debtor, KRW 15,00,00 issued on November 29, 1979, and KRW 20 on February 20, 1980 as to one promissory note opened with the defendant bank Dong branch, and the above non-party 2 company as to KRW 15,00,00,00 as to the above non-party 1 company's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 company's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 company's non-party 2's non-party 1 company's non-party 2's non-party 1 company's non-party 2's non-party 1 company's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 company's.

In order for the plaintiff to pay the above whole amount of loans to the non-party 1 bank, the defendant could not set off the above non-party 2's claims against the non-party 1 bank by offsetting the above non-party 8's loans against the non-party 2's above non-party 1 bank by offsetting the above non-party 9's claim against the non-party 2 by offsetting the above non-party 1's claim against the non-party 2 by offsetting the above non-party 1's claim against the non-party 3 by offsetting the above non-party 9's claim against the non-party 2. The non-party 2's claim against the non-party 3 was not set off by offsetting the above non-party 1's claim against the non-party 2 by offsetting the above non-party 9's claim against the non-party 2 by offsetting the above non-party 3's claim against the non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's claim against the above non-party company by offsetting the above's claim against the above non-party 9's claim against the above defendant.

The plaintiff's separate deposit against the bill of lading should be regarded as a kind of deposit for the settlement of the bill. Thus, since the defendant cannot arbitrarily offset the bill until the bill of exchange is recovered, even if the above offset is invalid and domestic set-off can not be made, the payment entrusted by the issuer of the bill of exchange is not revoked. In addition, the defendant bank extended 20,000,000 won to the non-party company for the loan to the non-party company, since the registration of establishment was completed on the non-party company's real estate for the payment security and the third party's joint and several sureties was established, the above set-off for the purpose of obstructing the plaintiff's execution of the bill of exchange is a tort and is invalid against the good faith principle. However, unless the bank transaction agreement between the defendant bank and the non-party company as seen above was made, the defendant bank cannot offset the above set-off under the above agreement, and there is no ground to believe that the defendant bank cannot set off the defendant bank against the defendant's trust and good faith, and it cannot be argued that the defendant bank's witness cannot set off any other tort.

Then, the plaintiff bank, after receiving the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure on March 3, 1980, set off an offset retroactively against the plaintiff. Thus, the third debtor bank, who had a claim on a set-off against the non-party company, the debtor prior to the service of the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure, may oppose the plaintiff, the whole creditor, as a set-off after the service of the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for full payment of the case is dismissed without merit, and since the original judgment with the same conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)