All of the Plaintiff’s appeals against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 and the Defendants’ appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

Since an appeal is seeking a change in the revocation of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, the appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her is not allowed, since there is no object or interest to file a final appeal (Article 73Da2, March 13, 1973). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the court below dismissed the appeal of the defendant, such as maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted all the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1. Accordingly, the appeal filed against the same defendant by the plaintiff who won the entire appeal is unlawful as it is without any interest in the final appeal, and thus it is impossible

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer against the defendants 2 and 3.

Unlike ordinary joint and several liability, the liability of a fidelity guarantor under the Act on the Guarantee of Personal Identity shall be taken into account the circumstances stipulated in Article 6 of the same Act in determining his/her liability and amount. Therefore, considering the above circumstances in determining the liability of a fidelity guarantor, it cannot be accepted as including misunderstanding the above legal provisions, and the court below's finding of facts and its judgment decision making that the circumstance of the fidelity guarantor's liability violates Article 414 of the Civil Act by recognizing the background of the fidelity guarantee or the status of the fidelity guarantor's identity, and determined the limit of the liability of the fidelity guarantor's liability is just in comparison with the records. It is without merit to find that there has been a mistake in violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

In comparison with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, there is no evidence to deem that the damages of the plaintiff caused by the accident of this case was negligent in the plaintiff in the accident of this case, and there is no evidence to support that the defendants, the guarantor, did not purchase the automobile comprehensive insurance, and did not notify the guarantor of this circumstance, the fact-finding and the decision-finding measures are sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or the legal principles on the liability for the fidelity guarantee, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the liability for the fidelity guarantee.

3. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed without examining the grounds of appeal. The Plaintiff’s remaining Defendants’ appeal against the Defendants and the Defendants’ appeal are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)