Where both parties are different from the due date, making a set-off account without calculating damages for delay from the due date to the time of offset is unlawful.

The calculation of set-off is erroneous, except for delay damages up to set-off in the event that the repayment period of the same claim comes first and the delay damages of the agreement are added.

Article 492 of the Civil Act

Maximum Demand

Oralho et al.

Daegu District Court Decision 60No839 delivered on August 1, 1961

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiff's agent stated in the annexed appellate brief

According to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's defense of offset by the defendant was in the condition of offsetting the plaintiff on September 6, 4293 by acquiring the claims against the plaintiff on the same day, and held that the plaintiff's claim, which is the passive claim, reaches the due date of February 16, 4293, and accrued from February 16, 4293, the contract delay damages should be imposed. However, it is obvious that the court below calculated the offset without calculating the delayed damages until September 5, 4293, which led to the above offset, is not unlawful.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by omitting an explanation of other grounds of appeal.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum leapbal leapbal leaps