The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. The part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited part of the judgment, “1. Facts recognized” through “2. Cause of claim”, is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance to No. 4 to No. 310), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary to the judgment of the court of first instance]

3. The defendants' assertion and judgment

A. On April 9, 2019, the Defendants’ assertion E drafted a letter stating that “G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G Co., Ltd.”) was unable to pay all the subcontract consideration related to the instant housing construction, and would compensate the Defendants for damages if the Defendants were damaged (hereinafter “each letter of this case”). The Defendants were unable to pay the subcontract consideration, resulting in the Defendants’ failure to incur a total of KRW 120 million liability to the sewage supplier.

Therefore, the Defendants, inasmuch as there exists a damage claim against E in accordance with each of the instant contracts, that claim shall be offset against the amount equal to the instant loans (the Defendants withdrawn the remainder of the claim except the defense of offset from the first pleading date in this Court). B. The obligor in receipt of the notice of the transfer of the judgment may set up against the assignee for the reasons that occurred to the transferor until he/she was notified of the transfer of the judgment, and if the obligor had a counterclaim in the form of offset against the transferor when he/she was notified of the transfer of the judgment, the obligor may set off against

On the other hand, if there was a cause for offset at the time of notification of transfer, even if there was no yet set-off, if there was a subsequent difference in the situation of offset, the obligor may set-off against the assignee (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da18039 delivered on August 20, 199, etc.). However, in such cases, the maturity of the automatic claim is more than that of the passive claim.