(a) A case recognizing that a change in the duties of so-called employee under Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Credit Guarantee Act would increase the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor;

B. Since an employer did not notify under Article 4 of the Credit Guarantee Act, the contract for the fidelity guarantee is not naturally invalidated or it is not exempt from the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor.

(a) Where any change in the duties of an employee increases the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor, the employer shall notify the fidelity guarantor thereof;

(b) The contract for fidelity guarantee is not naturally invalidated or is not exempt from the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor because the contractor did not give notice under this Article.

Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, Article 4

Agricultural Cooperatives Federation (Attorney Yang Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 1 other (Attorney Kim Jung-do, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1723 delivered on November 26, 1968

The appeals by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the Plaintiff’s appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising from the Defendants’ appeal shall be jointly borne by the Defendants.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendants guaranteed their identity with the knowledge that the non-party was employed as a temporary employee at the office of the joint wholesale market belonging to the plaintiff's federation, and therefore, the plaintiff first had the non-party engaged in a theft prevention, etc., and had him deal with the affairs of receipts and disbursements of money from time to time on May 1, 65, and appointed the non-party as a regular salesperson, who is an employee at the 65.5.1, and the defendant was responsible for the accounting as an average of 50 million won or 70 million won, and his responsibility was prevented. Thus, the defendant's liability should be aggravated due to the change in the duties of the so-called employee under Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Guarantee of Personal Identity. Accordingly, since the plaintiff has a duty to notify the fidelity guarantor, the plaintiff, the guarantor of the non-party, and therefore, the court below did not accept the legal principles as to the change in the duties of the non-party's employee under Article 4 of the Guarantee of Personal Identity Act.

According to the second point and the reasoning of the judgment, the court below determined by legitimate evidence that the joint market where the non-party Jeong Dong-hee worked had lineal ascendants and descendants of the chief, the vice chief, and the temporary sales staff of the agency, and 80 employees. When the plaintiff was promoted from the temporary staff to the regular staff, the plaintiff was in exclusive charge of cash receipts and disbursements, which caused the same accident as alleged by the plaintiff in this case, and recognized that the plaintiff was in exclusive charge of cash receipts and disbursements only to the above Jeong Dong-hee, and the superior was negligent in supervising it. Thus, the court below did not recognize the plaintiff's negligence without any evidence. In such a case, since the witness's testimony pointing out the theory of lawsuit cannot be recognized as having no negligence in supervising the plaintiff, the court below cannot accept the conclusion that there was no negligence in supervising the above Jung Dong-hee.

According to the third point and Article 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, in determining the responsibility and amount of the fidelity guarantor's damage compensation, the court shall consider the employer's negligence in supervising the employee, the reason why the fidelity guarantor has made the fidelity guarantee, the reason why the fidelity guarantor has made the fidelity guarantee, and the attention should be limited to the employee's duties or personal identity, the change in the employee's identity, and all other circumstances. Thus, the court below is justified in considering the circumstances cited in the theory of the lawsuit that the defendant et al. did not know the contents in entering into the contract for the fidelity guarantee, or that there was the designated trader of the plaintiff federation in collusion with the above Jeong-hee and caused the damage to the plaintiff.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant et al.'s attorney.

Where the liability of a fidelity guarantor is increased due to a change in the employee's duties or land under Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, the employer shall notify the fidelity guarantor thereof, and the fidelity guarantor so notified may terminate the Fidelity Guarantee Agreement under Article 5 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, but the Fidelity guarantor so notified shall not be naturally invalidated or exempted from the liability of the Fidelity guarantor because the Fidelity Guarantee Agreement has not been notified in the above case. In this case, the defendant et al. made the Non-Party 1's Fidelity Guarantee and used the Non-Party 1's Fidelity Guarantee for the 1965 February 28, 1965, which was after the 2nd anniversary of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, and even after the expiration of the period, the Fidelity of the above Fidelity Contract cannot be null and void unless it is agreed upon between the parties, and even after the expiration of the period, the Fidelity of the above Fidelity Contract is valid under the premise that the Fidelity Contract of the plaintiff's change in the land or land of the non-party.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-dong (Presiding Justice)