1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 21,347,420 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from March 7, 2017 to July 19, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2005, while the Defendant was serving as the Plaintiff’s employee from June 1994, the Defendant was dismissed from office on the ground of Defendant’s private lending and borrowing of money.

On June 12, 2008, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal and payment of wages during the period of dismissal, and confirmed that dismissal against the Defendant on May 12, 2005 was null and void, and rendered a ruling to pay an amount equivalent to wages calculated at the rate of KRW 7,549,544 per month from May 13, 2005 to the time of reinstatement of the Plaintiff.

(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gahap7959 delivered on April 23, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). Afterwards of appeal, the Defendant filed a final appeal but all dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na65299 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da11303 delivered on April 23, 2009).

B. The Plaintiff reinstated the Defendant on June 1, 2009.

Afterward, from May 13, 2005 to May 31, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000, which was calculated on June 23, 2009 after deducting the Defendant’s total of KRW 68,379,840,00, which was determined to be an intermediate income earned from another workplace during the above period, from KRW 367,05,258,00,00,000, which was computed on June 23, 2009 by deducting the total of KRW 49,072,035, which was paid to the Defendant as retirement pay to the Defendant on June 15, 2005 after the above dismissal.

C. On June 18, 2015, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail stating that the Plaintiff would not pay KRW 37,004,910 to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant did not pay it by June 30, 2015.

On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2015Da522923, hereinafter “instant claim objection”), and asserted a set-off against the Defendant’s interim income repayment claim based on the instant judgment against the passive claim.

However, in the above case, the Supreme Court.