The meaning of a guarantee agreement to the effect that the guarantor, etc. shall be held responsible for any loss caused by the guarantor's intentional or negligent act during his term of office.

A contract for fidelity guarantee to the effect that the guarantor, etc. will be held liable for all civil and criminal liability when the guarantor has caused a loss due to the intention or negligence while in office is not an independent damage security contract, but an incidental damage guarantee contract. Therefore, the scope of liability of the guarantor should be determined first after determining the scope of liability of the guarantor.

Article 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da1166 Delivered on January 11, 1977

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Hong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na575 delivered on June 13, 1980

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 3.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment of the court below, it is evident that the content of the contract for fidelity guarantee made by the defendant for the plaintiff-gun on behalf of the non-party who is a public official belonging to the court of first instance shall be all civil and criminal responsibilities of the guarantor, etc. when the non-party, while in office, has inflicted damage on him by intention or negligence.

Therefore, this guarantee contract is not an independent damage security contract, but an additional guarantee contract that the defendant assumes responsibility for the plaintiff group only if the above non-party who is the guarantor bears responsibility for the debt of the guarantor group. Thus, if the plaintiff group seeks compensation to the defendant who is the guarantor due to a traffic accident as stated in the judgment of the first instance court cited by the judgment of the court of first instance by the non-party, the court below should have determined the amount of compensation by taking into account the circumstances of the accident first, and then should have determined the amount of compensation again. However, the court below maintained the judgment of the first instance court which determined the scope of the liability of the guarantor without determining the scope of the guarantor's liability, and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which determined the limit of the liability of the guarantor group to compensate for the total amount of medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff group. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance which determined the limit of the liability of the guarantor's compensation for damages in the incidental guarantee contract cannot be exempted from criticism by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of damages that the guarantor should compensate

The judgment of the court below should be reversed in this respect because the appeal from the criticism of this point is reasonable, and the remaining grounds of appeal are no longer necessary.

Therefore, this appeal is with merit, and therefore reversed and remanded the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)