Joint relations between liability of the fidelity guarantor and his employee;

(a) In case of a contract for fidelity guarantee which belongs to a kind of damage security contract, the fidelity guarantor's defense of search is not accepted;

B. Unless otherwise stipulated in a contract for fidelity guarantee, the guarantor's liability for damage belongs to its independent responsibility without joint and several liability with the employee.

Article 1 (2) of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Republic of Korea (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and four others

Chobong-gu and two others (Attorneys Choi Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 62Na21 delivered on June 13, 1962

Each appeal by the Plaintiff, Defendant Cho Young-gu, Defendant Man-gu, Defendant Man-do, and Defendant Man-do is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Morse decoration, Defendant Cho Young-gu, Defendant Lee Jae-young, Defendant Lee Jae-woo, Defendant Lee Jae-soo, Defendant Park Jong-chul, Defendant Park Jong-chul, Defendant leap, and Defendant leap cancer shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Cho Young-gu, Defendant Pule and Defendant leap cancer shall be borne by the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, although the fidelity guarantor is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the employer due to the act of an employee, it does not mean that the responsibility for compensating for the damages is deleted jointly with the employee. Therefore, if there is no special agreement to enter into a contract for the fidelity Guarantee that the liability for compensating for damages should be attributed to its own responsibility without the joint and several liability with the employee, even if the fidelity guarantor's liability for compensating for damages is based on the evidence No. 2-1 and evidence No. 3 (each letter of fidelity Guarantee) of the Fidelity No. 2-1 and No. 3 (each letter of fidelity Guarantee), it is not possible to find out the trace of the agreement that each guarantor and 3 jointly and severally compensate for the damages suffered by the employer. As such, the court below cannot be employed to criticize the status of the court below with the view that it is appropriate to impose joint and several liability as argued by such evidence materials.

The second ground of appeal is determined.

In determining the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor to compensate for the damage and the amount of the judgment, various circumstances shown in the pleading can be taken into consideration by the original judgment. Even though the specific circumstances of the consideration have not been taken in detail, the purport of the decision is ultimately to understand through the whole records as it does not fall under the category of circumstances referred to in Article 6 of the Act on the Guarantee of Fidelity, and therefore, it is not erroneous in the original judgment. There is no reason to see this.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by Defendant le-gu and Defendant le-dopam attorney shall be determined.

It can not be seen that the issue of notification of the employee as provided in each subparagraph of Article 4 of the Guarantee of Personal Identity Act belongs to the matter of ex officio investigation by the court is just a single part of the court, and the court has a duty to explain it.

There is no reason for this issue.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined as follows. Documents pertaining to a certificate of employment mentioned above are prepared on September 26, 1962, which was after the original judgment was sentenced, and this is clear by the original judgment itself on the face of the text that no such documents were submitted by documentary evidence to the court of original judgment. This is obvious in light of the nature of the original judgment, which cannot be considered as evidence for attack in the original judgment, can not be adopted by the court of final appeal.

The first ground of appeal of the defendant Cho Young-gu attorney is examined. The necessity of the confirmation of the fidelity guarantor as a valid condition of the contract for fidelity guarantee is nothing more than the original part of the debate, and it is clear in the record that the misconduct of the defendant Cho Young-gu was made within three years after concluding the contract for fidelity guarantee on January 12, 1956. There is no reason to conclude this argument. The second ground of appeal is examined.

The fidelity guarantor in receipt of notification under Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act can terminate a contract for the fidelity guarantee and do not automatically be exempted from liability for damage by receiving such notification, and the defendant also refers to the case where the appeal is filed. As such, in October 1957, he notified the fact that the defendant was guilty of the defendant Cho Jong-hun during the period of appeal, he notified the head of the Nam-gu Office in charge of the fact that the defendant Cho Jong-dae did not terminate the contract for the above fidelity guarantee even though he knew of the fact that the defendant Cho Jong-dae was guilty of the fact that the defendant Cho Jong-dae was guilty, so if it is obvious that he did not cancel the contract for the above fidelity guarantee, he cannot be exempted from liability as a fidelity guarantor, so the court below's recognition of the defendant's liability for damages is legitimate, and there is no reason to criticize the defendant's measures under the opposing opinion.

The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence. According to the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the amount suffered by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's fraudulent act of the defendant Cho Jong-hun is 319,860 won in total, and the non-party Park Jong-soo, one of the referees, died on July 21, 1956, and eventually, the guarantor becomes two persons of the defendant Cho Young-gu and the non-party Kim Kim Kim Jong-soo. Therefore, the judgment of the court below should be justified. Thus, the part that the plaintiff who is the employer due to the act of the judgment of the principal of the principal of the principal of the principal is liable for half of 319,860 won in amount, which is 159,930 won in amount, which is 150,000 won in amount, which is 159,930 won in amount. This case's fidelity guarantee contract is based on the evidence No. 2-1 (Fidelity) of the principal of the principal.

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

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Cho Jin-man (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jong-man (Presiding Justice)