(a) Embezzlement the proceeds of fertilizers by an accounting official in charge of the division of revenues and expenditures in cash from the branch office of the Foreign Investment Agency and responsibility of the guarantor

(b) A guarantor's right to reply to highest and search;

The contract for fidelity guarantee stipulates that the guarantor shall pay independently all property damage that may arise due to the guarantor's employment contract with the employer, and the fidelity guarantee is not the guarantor's right of defense of highest and search based on the incidental existence of the principal debtor, unlike the ordinary guarantee.

Articles 1 and 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, Article 437 of the Civil Act

Republic of Korea (Attorney Kim Yong-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 4294No44 delivered on August 3, 1961

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

The Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1 is determined.

Based on evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party, as a public official in charge of the cash taking partial charge of the revenue of the branch office of the foreign capital state office from July 1, 1956 to March 14, 1959, received 2,248,084 exchange 50 won from the persons who received the distribution of fertilizers from the persons who received the distribution of fertilizers from the former branch office of the foreign capital state office, and embezzled it without inserting it to the National Treasury. Even if the Myeon governor paid the fertilizer without exchanging the Myeon governor's identification certificate, even if the Myeon governor paid the fertilizer without the exchange of the Myeon governor's identification certificate, if the Myeon governor received the distribution of the fertilizer owned by the government and paid it to the non-party who is the public official in charge of the revenue of the branch office of the former branch office of the foreign capital state office of the foreign capital state office, this money becomes the national treasury, and therefore, the non-party's damage should be caused by the non-party's act, which is too obvious, for the defendants.

This ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

There is no evidence to clarify this in the record about the reason for guaranteeing the identity of the author and the degree of attention in doing this. Even if the court below did not make any remarks on this issue, the decision does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. There is no reason for the argument.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

A contract for fidelity guarantee stipulates that the guarantor shall pay independently all property damage which may arise due to the guarantor's contract under the contract of employment with the employer, and the fidelity guarantee is not the guarantor's right of defense of highest and search based on the incidental existence of the principal debtor, unlike ordinary guarantee. There is no reason for this issue.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

In the case where an employee is a public official for receipt and disbursement, the employer country is not responsible for the negligence in supervision. It is nothing more than the plaintiff's independent opinion. There is no reason for the argument.

Therefore, each appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Supreme Court Justices.

Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court