(a) Set-off against the claim for refund of equity shares issued by the withdrawing member and the claim for embezzlement and refund of gold;

(b) Set-off against the claims of others jointly and severally liable,

A. In a case where the withdrawing partner embezzled the amount of the company's money in the course of the joint business operations, the withdrawing partner is responsible for compensating for it. Therefore, the manager of the company may claim a set-off against the withdrawing partner's claim for the return of the amount of money by using the above damage claim as the automatic claim.

B. As long as the Defendant and the Nonparty, who are the manager of the Dong company, jointly and severally bear the obligation to return the amount invested to the Plaintiff who withdrawn from the Dong company, the Defendant may claim a set-off against the Nonparty’s obligation with respect to the portion of the Nonparty’s share of the joint business.

(a) Articles 492, 715, and 719(b) of the Civil Act;

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 81Na1257 delivered on February 16, 1983

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below concluded that the plaintiff and the above non-party agreed to jointly operate a printing factory with the plaintiff's share of 7,00,000 won in the plaintiff's withdrawal from the manufacturing business, and the defendant and the non-party agreed to jointly return the amount of 3,00,000 won which was not yet paid out of the above agreed amount. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant's offset defense was concluded that the plaintiff embezzled 3,324,210 won in total among the above businesses, and the defendant sustained 3,324,210 won in the above amount of 3,324,210 won in accordance with its investment ratio, and the defendant suffered damages from 1,108,070 won in the above amount of 3,324,210 won in the above amount of 3,000 won in the above amount of 1,108,070 won in the above amount of 1,000 won in the damages claim amount.

2. If the plaintiff's cause of claim was jointly managed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the non-party, as seen above in the above original city, and the defendant and the non-party agreed to jointly return the plaintiff's share in the withdrawal from the said enterprise, the above joint enterprise was in a partnership relationship under the Civil Act, and the defendant and the non-party, who are remaining members of the plaintiff's withdrawal, jointly and severally return the plaintiff's share in the execution of the joint business. Thus, as long as the plaintiff embezzled the money of the above joint business during the execution of the above joint business, as long as the plaintiff embezzled the money of the above joint business, the plaintiff is responsible for compensating the joint business entity for the amount of the embezzlement. Thus, the defendant, who is the manager of the above company, can claim the above claim for damages against the plaintiff's claim for offset

In addition, as long as the defendant and the above non-party assumed that they bear a joint and several obligation with respect to the plaintiff's claim for return of investment, the defendant may claim a set-off against the non-party's claim for return of embezzlement, such as the time of original sales with respect to the non-party's claim (see Article 418 (2) of the Civil Act).

In addition, it cannot be said that the reason why the plaintiff has embezzled the money of the above Dong, and the reason why the plaintiff has the right to claim the return in accordance with the plaintiff's share ratio can be justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained on the ground that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the withdrawal of a union and an offset against the performance of duties, and there is a contradiction in the reasoning.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)