In a case where a private person (private) is committed jointly with the representative of a juristic person under the Guarantee of Personal Identity Act, if the representative of the juristic person knew that there is a concern about causing the responsibility of the guarantor, whether the juristic person may be deemed to have known of such fact (affirmative)

Even if a private act is committed jointly with the representative of a juristic person, if the representative of the juristic person knew that it would cause the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor due to the private act in which the representative of the juristic person is in bad faith, that fact would be known.

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act and Article 5 (1) of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 76Da1853 Decided June 7, 1977 (Gong1977, 10149)

Plaintiff’s community credit cooperatives (Attorney Kim-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Shin Sang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na75089 delivered on April 28, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. The court below determined that the plaintiff's non-profit corporation established pursuant to the Community Credit Cooperatives Act and the non-party 1 worked as the chairperson from March 25, 1980 to December 5, 1995 on behalf of the plaintiff. The non-party 2 worked as the plaintiff's pre-paid agent on March 1, 1985 to December 27, 195 and actually took overall control of the plaintiff's business under the order of the non-party 1. However, the non-party 2 borrowed 30 million won from Han Bank Co., Ltd. for damages caused by the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party's non-indicted 1's non-party's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9.

2. Even if a private person is found to be jointly with the representative of a juristic person, if the representative of a juristic person knew that there is a private fault in which the representative might cause the fidelity guarantor's liability, then the juristic person becomes aware of such fact (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da1853, Jun. 7, 197).

In this case, even according to the above facts of the judgment below, the 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 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 non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 300 million won's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 194'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 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's explanation obligation.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiff's initial illegal loan was known of the non-party 2's illegal act around November 15, 1994, which had already been implemented, and therefore, the plaintiff did not perform the plaintiff's obligation to notify the fidelity guarantor. The defendant is exempted from the liability to guarantee the fidelity after the notification was made, but the defendant bears the responsibility to guarantee the 300 million won of illegal loan prior to the occurrence of the notification duty. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)