The case denying the guarantor's liability for damages incurred by the company due to the failure of the company to perform an agreement to pay the unclaimed advertising fees in lieu of the original employment contract, separate from the original employment contract with the company.

The case denying the guarantor's liability for damages incurred by the company due to the failure to perform an agreement that the identity of the person who caused the outside of the advertisement did not pay the unclaimed advertising fees to the company after the fact, separate from the original employment contract.

Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da8125 delivered on April 23, 1993

Busan Busan District Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

[Defendant-Appellant] Han-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 91Na63 delivered on January 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed after the expiration of the submission period).

1. We examine the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records. The court below's reasoning points out the lawsuit, i.e., the non-party, who is the principal of the contract, directly assumes the liability for the payment of advertising fees for the advertisement he recruited and recruited under the employment contract at the time when he became a member of the advertisement office of the plaintiff company, and the non-party, who signed and sealed the pledge to the effect that the non-party consented to the policy for the implementation of the contract for the contract for the contract for the non-advertisement of the plaintiff company, agreed to directly bear the liability for the payment of the attempted advertising fees for the non-advertisement's advertising materials. The non-party, who actually collected advertising fees from the advertiser and used them at will or consumed them at will or violated the contents of the employment contract, rejected the plaintiff's assertion as to the fact that the non-party was negligent in taking all necessary measures for the collection of the attempted advertising fees claims as the non-party member of the advertisement office, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. However, the court below rejected the above assertion, on the plaintiff's assertion that the above non-party agreed that the non-party would pay the plaintiff the above non-party's attempted advertising fees instead of the non-party's own advertising fees, and that the defendant, the guarantor of the non-party, is obligated to pay the above attempted advertising fees to the plaintiff. However, although all the above non-party is able to recognize that the non-party's failure to collect advertising fees have existed up to four times and submit a letter to the plaintiff company, it cannot be viewed that the purport of the letter is that he would have agreed to pay the non-party's attempted advertising fees on behalf of the advertiser, and it is reasonable to view that the above non-party's failure to collect advertising fees should not be paid the non-party's own advertising fees. In light of the fact that the above non-party's statement of intent to pay the plaintiff's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's own advertising fees by its own account, it is reasonable to interpret that the above non-party's failure to collect advertising advertising fees.

However, according to the records, the contract of this case entered into between the plaintiff company and the defendant as the identity of the above non-party is that "the fidelity guarantor shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage to the user". It is reasonable to interpret the purport that the defendant shall be liable for compensation when the above non-party did not perform his/her obligation under an employment contract during his/her service or suffered damage to the plaintiff company due to tort.

Therefore, even if the above non-party agreed to pay the advertising fees for the non-party in direct charge of his employment contract in addition to the original employment contract, and the plaintiff company suffered losses corresponding thereto by failing to perform it, it is clear that it is not a tort related to the non-party's duties and there is no direct relation with the duty under the employment contract, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is not liable as a fidelity guarantor for the above damages. Ultimately, the above mistake of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the court below's decision denying the responsibility for fidelity guarantee, and thus, it is therefore without merit.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)