[손해배상][집28(2)민,59;공1980.8.15.(638),12959]
The case holding that a contract for fidelity guarantee is an incidental guarantee agreement
A contract for fidelity guarantee with the purport that "if a guarantor causes a loss to she due to intention or negligence while in office, the guarantor, etc. shall be liable for all civil responsibilities for the vehicle, and one of the co-sureties shall be a joint and several surety" shall not be an independent guarantee contract, but an additional guarantee contract with the purport that the guarantor will perform the obligation only if the principal guarantor bears liability for the plaintiff, not an independent guarantee contract.
Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act
Supreme Court Decision 76Da1166 Delivered on January 11, 1977
Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee
Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2460 delivered on February 25, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found that the accident occurred due to the negligence in the course of vehicle driving, which neglected the duty of care to proceed next to the bus while the sidewalk is divided into the sidewalk and the center line is clearly marked, and at the time of the accident, there is no crosswalk. At the time of the accident, at night, there was a view of the bus stops, and there was no easy discovery of pedestrians crossing the road due to the passage of the bus through the bus stops, and the Nonparty recognized the fact that there was an accident due to the negligence in the course of the vehicle driving, which neglected the duty of care to proceed next to the bus while considering the degree of competition with the victim's negligence and the circumstances leading to the accident, etc., it cannot be viewed that there was no legitimate error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts-finding based on the records.
The issue is groundless.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
However, in light of the terms and conditions of the evidence No. 1-1 (Financial Guarantee), it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 are an additional guarantee contract to the effect that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 will perform their obligations only when Defendant 1 would be liable to the Plaintiff, in light of the terms and conditions of the contract of the evidence No. 1-1 (Financial Guarantee), and that the above terms and conditions of the contract that guarantee the identity of Defendant 1, who are the public official belonging to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, are the surety, "if Defendant 1 caused damage to the Plaintiff due to intention or negligence while on duty, the surety, etc. will be held jointly and severally liable for all the civil disputes against the vehicle, and this is not justifiable in that it appears that Defendant 1 is not an independent guarantee contract, but an independent guarantee contract, but an independent guarantee contract, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the damage guarantee contract (see Supreme Court Decision 17Da166, Nov. 11, 197).
The Supreme Court's ruling pointing this out cannot be deemed appropriate in this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Justice)