상계에서 몇 가지 문제

Abstract

The set-off expects fairness between neither with convenience of the settlement as a system to let a bond and the debt of the mutual interval become extinct with an equal sum and has a function of the security for the bond of the mutual interval, and it is equal, and it is explained in the extinction reason of the bond by the purpose achievement of the bond, and, however, I am different from the performance in the set-off, and one, the set-off are slightly generally different from performance, substituted performance, deposit with the purpose achievement of the bond of the others not a shift of the reality at a point called the shift of the idea. I confine it to several kinds cases about offset at the side called various functions and the ideological shift of the set-off individually. The right or wrong and the matter become the problem whether set-off is permitted by this case. A representative thing is a compensation for damages by a simultaneous intentional unlawful act, a compensation for damages by the unlawful acts of the both faults in the same fact, the offset of the creditor of the provision prohibition bond, set-off by the bond transfer, the reverse set-off of the quality of all standing security for, the principle of the abuse of right to offset. I conclude that this report examined several kinds cases that seemed to be the top that became the problem by set-off in particular concretely, and seemed to be a bottom. ① The set-off is not permitted by a simultaneous intentional unlawful act and the unlawful act of both faults. ② The theory of no-limit in Garnishment Order must be adjusted and limited with the fairness by the theory of abuse of right to offset and the theory of reverse set-off. ③ Even if the wage catches the agreement of the wage earner, set-off is not permitted. ④ You must take in the theory of abuse of right to offset, the reverse set-off theory of the quality of all standing security for by the limit in a right to set-off.