The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff company registered the non-party 1, who is its employee, with the Ministry of Finance and Economy on February 1, 1976 under the Securities and Exchange Act, and had such employee take charge of soliciting the sale and purchase of securities and the sale and purchase transaction in the securities market for the plaintiff at a place other than the plaintiff's business establishment. However, in the plaintiff company, the non-party 1 is engaged in the business division of the plaintiff company's business division, and the non-party 1, including the non-party 1, belongs to the same business division, and engages in the business division and work, and he performs the above work. While the non-party 1 actually while performing his duties as a member of the non-party 1, it is merely an incidental act to the plaintiff's business office, and it does not constitute the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's losses.

Under the same purport, the judgment of the court below which held that the defendants are responsible for the guarantee of good faith is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of responsibility of the guarantor like the theory of lawsuit, and when comparing the reasoning of the judgment of the court below on the record, the non-party 1, who deposited the securities to the plaintiff as a securities company, and the Dong Kim Jong-dae et al. did not grant any right of representation to the non-party 1, who is an employee of the plaintiff company. However, it is only a fact that the non-party 1 had temporarily kept his seal stamps or the passbook of deposit deposit money to the non-party 1, but it can be identified that the non-party 1 had arbitrarily used the above seal stamps and forged the request for delivery of the securities or cash in the form of money for the defendant Kim Jong-dae, and then, in this case, the plaintiff's act of the non-party 1, who is an employee of the plaintiff company, or the representative of the plaintiff, could not be seen as extinguished to return the deposited securities to the customers.

No. 2. In light of the records of the judgment of the court below, the contents of the judgment of the court below as to the defendants' cause of liability are merely an expression that the plaintiff, who is an employee of the non-party 1, was unable to prevent the plaintiff's unlawful act in advance or to minimize damage therefrom, and it does not seem that there were errors in the law of inconsistency with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below among the contents of the judgment of the court below, since the non-party 1 was an external secretary of the plaintiff company, but the son's principal act was committed in relation to the plaintiff's duty as external secretary or incidental business performed within the plaintiff's company. Thus, if the plaintiff's damage was caused to the plaintiff.

No. 3. According to the relevant provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act, a person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment and for whom two years have not passed since the execution of the sentence was terminated or non-execution became final, shall not be registered as a securities source. Despite the fact that the plaintiff's employment was conducted prior to the employment of Nonparty 1, he neglected it and he was employed by the Seoul District Criminal Court on January 30, 1975 as a non-securities source who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year as a crime of forging private documents, etc., and was not aware of the fact that he was disqualified as a securities source, even if he did so, the above reasons are important factors in determining the scope of the responsibility of the defendants who are the fidelity guarantor (the first instance order the defendants to pay the amount of damages of the plaintiff 20,164,760 won as a result of this case). The judgment below's negligence cannot be viewed to be justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

No. 4. The amount of damages caused by the act of disposal of share certificates shall be calculated on the basis of the stock market price at the time of the tort. However, this case is clear in light of the reasoning of the judgment below that the plaintiff is not liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as the non-party 1's illegal act, but all the plaintiff is liable for the storage and return of deposited shares to the truster and the compensation liability in lieu thereof. Therefore, the court below's decision is just and there is no error of law as to the calculation period of damages caused by the tort and the calculation period of damages caused by the non-party 1's unlawful act.

All arguments can not be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)