The contract for fidelity guarantee is reasonable to interpret that the contract for fidelity guarantee remains valid, unless there are other special circumstances, so long as an employee is continuously employed by another company even after the company is merged with another company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 66Da1940, Jan. 31, 1967). According to the facts and records confirmed by the court below, on Jan. 5, 1989, the non-party who was a co-defendant of the court of first instance entered into a contract for the fidelity guarantee for a fixed period of five years on behalf of the above non-party, and thereafter, on Dec. 28, 190, the above non-party was merged with the plaintiff company, but the above non-party was continuously employed by the plaintiff company, and barring any other special circumstances, the above contract for fidelity guarantee continues to exist between the plaintiff company and the non-party.

In addition, in light of the records, the plaintiff's opinion on December 28, 199 on whether the contract for the fidelity guarantee against the above non-party should continue to exist, and as such, the plaintiff's opinion was rejected on January 18, 1991 that the plaintiff cannot be held liable as the fidelity guarantor for damages incurred thereafter. Based on macro-Evidence, in the process of newly arranging the contract for the fidelity guarantee to all employees after the merger of the company, the plaintiff sought confirmation on December 28, 1990 as to whether there was no objection even if the guarantee period under the contract for the fidelity guarantee against the above non-party was renewed for five years from January 31, 191, 191, and the above defendant rejected the non-party's new contract for the fidelity guarantee as to the non-party's refusal to establish a new contract for the fidelity guarantee or to promote the sale of the contract for the above non-party's loss, as long as the contract for the fidelity guarantee was terminated within the period of 1991.

There is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below contains misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal as to the limit of guarantee liability.

In light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the amount to be compensated by the Defendants in consideration of the circumstances as stated in its holding, such as the circumstance leading up to the guarantee of identity of this case and the Plaintiff's supervisor non-refluence, is just and acceptable, and it is not unreasonable to exempt the Defendants from the liability for damages. Thus, there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)