[손해배상청구사건][고집1965민,330]
Cases of gross negligence of lack of notification to the fidelity guarantor;
The fidelity guarantee of the guarantor is at the time of hiring by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the appointment of the expenditure officer without establishing a separate financial guarantee under the Budget and Accounts Act by the enforcement of the Budget and Accounts Act.
Article 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act
Korea
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul Central District Court (64A3887) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 64Da3887)
The appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed.
The parts concerning Defendant 1 and 2 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:
The defendants pay 160,000 won to Round and 5% interest rate per annum from June 26, 1964 to the full payment of the above amount.
The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be ten minutes, which shall be borne by the Defendants, and shall be borne by the rest of the Plaintiff.
A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (1) of this Article.
The plaintiff 1 and 2's attorney shall pay to the plaintiff 3,320,314 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from the day following the day when the plaintiff 1 and 2 delivered to the defendant, and the amount soar to the above full payment system.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc. and a declaration of provisional execution shall be sought, and the defendant, etc. attorney shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
The court costs are assessed against the plaintiff.
The attorney of the plaintiff shall file an appeal by the defendant, etc.
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.
Defendant 1 and 2 pay to the Plaintiff money at the rate of five percent per annum from June 26, 1964 to the date of full payment of the said money.
All litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, etc. and a declaration of provisional execution. The defendant, etc.'s attorney shall dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.
The part against the defendant among the original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.
No dispute over the establishment of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 (Fidelity Guarantee), 4 (Judgment), 5 (Protocol of Accusation), and 4 (Judgment), 5, 7 (Protocol of Accusation), 6, 8 (Protocol of Suspect Examination), 9 (Protocol of Suspect Examination), 10 (Protocol of Indictment), and 3 (No Evidence No. 10) which are the authenticity of establishment by the testimony of non-party 1 of the original judgment witness No. 3, the defendants were allowed to commission non-party 2, 3, and 4 to the general expenditure officer of the National Treasury on Oct. 20, 1961, and borrowed from the above Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy on Oct. 20, 196, to the above Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs on Oct. 20, 196, to the above Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs on Oct. 21, 1961, to the above Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs on Oct. 3, 1961.
Therefore, the defendant, etc. who borrowed the letter of fidelity Guarantee that "the person who will add all the responsibility for his personal affairs and property while working as an employee of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy" shall be held liable as a guarantor for all the damages incurred by the tort during his term of office unless there is any special reason to the contrary.
However, as recognized above, the defendant et al.'s attorney stated that the guarantee was made only by the defendant et al., but it was believed to be a guarantee on his status, and if the guarantee was held concurrently as well as property guarantee, the defendants' act of guaranteeing that portion was erroneous as to this point. Thus, if the non-party 1's testimony and each of the above acknowledged facts were stated on the non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 1's statement on the non-party 1's statement on the non-party 1's statement on the non-party 1's statement on the non-party 1's statement on the non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 1's statement on the non-party 1's act of claiming the above non-party's personal liability or the non-party 1's obligation to guarantee the non-party 1's property damage is not known to the non-party 1's joint surety or the non-party 1's obligation to guarantee the non-party 1's non-party 3200 billion won's money.
Then, the defendant et al.'s attorney at the defendant et al. asserted that the defendant et al. neglected the plaintiff's duty to compensate for the damages because he did not compensate for the damages since he did not compensate for the damages of the plaintiff as soon as possible, although the defendant et al. notified the plaintiff to the non-party 5 of the court below as soon as possible, in writing or orally, the defendant et al., to the plaintiff when the accident occurred. Thus, the defendant et al.'s attorney at the defendant et al. asserted that the guaranteed liability should be exempted even if there was a snow company's guaranteed liability. Thus, the defendant et al.'s above assertion is without merit since the defendant et al. did not have any al.'s sal.'
The following facts are that the defendant's attorney is not responsible for non-party 1's non-party 1's business and the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's financial guarantee officer's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's financial guarantee officer's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's financial guarantee officer's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's financial guarantee officer's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's financial guarantee officer's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's financial guarantee.
Therefore, examining the above facts as to the defendants' guaranteed liability, the defendants guaranteed the non-party 1 by the non-party 5 witness's testimony and the whole purport of the parties' arguments. Since the defendants had been at the position of the public official(s) and the non-party 1 changed their position and position within a simple meaning, the plaintiff did not notify the defendants as the guarantor, and did not thoroughly supervise the non-party 1's duty under his supervision, it is more gross negligence. The defendants' claim that the non-party 1's guaranteed liability was more than 6's 9's 9's 6's 9's 9's 9's 9's 6's 9's 9's 9's 9's 6's 9's 9's 6's 9's 9's 6's 9's 9's 6's 10's 6's 10's 6's 10's 6's 's 6's 's 10'''''''s ''''''''' '' 1''' ' '''''' 1' '' '.
Judges Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)