The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30 million won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from April 8, 1972 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into four parts, and three parts shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff's attorney asserts that the defendant bears the obligation to compensate independently all damages suffered by the plaintiff who is the owner of the loan due to the plaintiff's intentional negligence, regardless of whether the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement against the non-party 1 who is the guarantor under a favorable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the defendant bears the obligation to compensate independently. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that if the non-party 1, who is the guarantor, bears the obligation to reimburse the plaintiff, he shall be liable to compensate for the damages caused by the non-party 1's traffic accident which is the guarantor, the non-party 1, who is the guarantor, intentionally or by gross negligence, is not liable to compensate the damages caused by the non-party 1's accident which is the guarantor, the non-party 1's right to indemnity for the above accident, and therefore the defendant's obligation to compensate for the damages caused by the non-party 2's negligence, regardless of the existence of the obligation to compensate the non-party 1's damages caused by the non-party 1's negligence.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s damages can be seen as the above damages.

The above evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-1, 2-2 (written decision, consent and claim), 3-4 (written decision, 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, 9-1, 9-1, 8-2, 9-2, 10-2, 7-2, 7-1, 9-2, 7-2 (written decision, 9-1, 97) and 9-1, 7-2 (written decision, 7-1, 97.2, 97.2, 97.2, 97.2, 97.2, 97.2, 97.2, 97.2, 97.2, 197, 197.2, 197, 197.2, 197, 3-1, and 4 of the above witness's testimony.

In the evidence No. 4 (Written Decision on Compensation for Damages), although the determined amount of the Compensation Council for Damages mentioned above (A) is KRW 411,800, such amount shall not be believed to be a clerical error in light of the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, and No. 6 employed earlier.

Although the defendant argues that the degree of injury of non-party 2 of the traffic accident victim of the above 8-day medical treatment is obvious by the statement of evidence Nos. 5-7 (the same as the judgment, No. 3; hereinafter the same shall apply) No. 5-7 (the judgment, No. 3) and the statement of evidence No. 6 (the diagnosis of the above accident) and the plaintiff's expenses were borne by the plaintiff for about nine months after the accident. However, although the above evidence No. 5-7 and No. 6 were prepared on the basis of the victim's opinion as to the injury immediately after the traffic accident, the treatment period can be extended clearly and thereafter, the above evidence No. 5-7 and No. 6 can be extended by its statement itself. Thus, as recognized earlier, since the victim was treated before each hospital and the plaintiff was paid the treatment expenses, so long as the plaintiff did not bear it, it cannot be viewed as the above expenses for the plaintiff's damage.

In addition, the defendant argued that the victim of the above traffic accident was only KRW 9,000,000 paid to the plaintiff by the determination of the Compensation Council, but the plaintiff was recognized as having paid KRW 463,300 to the victim's representative as above. Thus, even if the amount the victim received from the proxy is only KRW 5,000,000, it is a problem between the victim and his representative, and it is not possible to affect the damage that the plaintiff received from the above compensation.

However, even if the above plaintiff suffered losses from the plaintiff's negligence during his active service, the scope of the defendant's liability to compensate is decided by the court, taking into account all the circumstances prescribed in Article 6 of the Guarantee of Personal Identity Act. (It is clear that the defendant asserted this point in view of the purport of his oral argument), according to the whole purport of the oral argument of the parties, the defendant was in the relation that the non-party 1 was a person who is a salary and has no property as the active active duty army, and was moving to the subordinate officer of the non-party 1 who is the guarantor, the non-party 1 was in the situation necessary for the plaintiff to seek work after discharge, and it was recognized that the plaintiff unilaterally paid damages to the victim without any prior notice from the defendant after the occurrence of the accident that is the reason for taking responsibility for the defendant's fidelity guarantee, and that the non-party 1 was not responsible for the non-party 1's damage, as well as for the non-party 1's accident caused by the non-party 1's negligence, and it seems reasonable to recognize that the defendant 10 as well.

For the above reasons, the plaintiff's main claim is justified to the extent that the next day after the day when it was served on the defendant that caused the case to be raised against the defendant is to be paid an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from April 8, 1972 to the full payment. The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable to this extent. Thus, the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment is reasonable, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable to this extent, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of Article 92 and Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the cost of lawsuit, and by applying Article 199 of the provisional execution law as to the cost of lawsuit.

Judge Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)