If, before the closure of pleadings, the claim was in a set-off or after the closure of pleadings, the reason for raising an objection to the claim has been declared.

If the other party had a claim on the offset before the closing of the final and conclusive judgment, which is a title of debt, but only after the closing of argument, expresses his intention of offset, the legal grounds for objection are applicable to the case where the cause of objection arose after the closing of argument, and the other party had known whether the objection was in the offset before the closing of argument.

Article 505 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 493 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1233 delivered on March 25, 1966

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

A set-off is a set-off of both parties’ obligations, and it does not take effect immediately, but takes effect only after the declaration of intent of a set-off is waited. Thus, even if the debtor has a claim on a set-off against the other party before the closure of the final and conclusive judgment, which is the name of the debtor, even though he/she had a claim on the set-off before the closure of the pleadings, if he/she has declared his/her intention of set-off after the closing of pleadings, it constitutes a case where the cause of objection as stipulated in Article 505(2) of the Civil Procedure Act arises after the closing of pleadings, and thus, a legitimate claim objection

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, under the premise that prior to the closing of argument, the opposing party has a claim to offset and the person who knew of the existence of a set-off in the set-off position has not set-off objection before the closing of argument, and the claim cannot be set-off after the final judgment became final and conclusive, and on the ground that the claim cannot be set-off as a ground for objection against the final and conclusive judgment, the argument based on the above final and conclusive judgment against the plaintiff was concluded on March 5, 1963. The plaintiff alleged that the fire occurred in the building of this case in October 29, 1962, and that the fire was due to the negligence of the defendant or his employee. Thus, regardless of the fact that the plaintiff could have set-off objection against the defendant's claim for return of the security deposit against the plaintiff, regardless of the fact that the plaintiff had continued to set-off the damages due to the above fire, it is clearly erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as stated in the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the original judgment and have the original judgment re-examine the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court