1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 11, 2003, the Plaintiff, as an operator of the luminous pharmaceutical seller of the trade name “D”, concluded a contract for the guarantee of personal identity with the Defendant to compensate D for damages incurred by the Defendant by employing C as an employee of D around July 1, 2003.

B. C used the price of goods, etc. for personal use during the period of work in D, and on October 1, 2008, “21,243,263 won used for personal use” to the Plaintiff until December 30, 2009.” The content of this case was written in a letter of non-performance of obligation and a letter of discharge of obligation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant formed a written financial guarantee separate from the written financial guarantee when entering into a contract for fidelity guarantee, and since the above financial guarantee includes the meaning of the joint and several guarantee, the defendant is obligated to pay the money embezzled by C as a joint and several guarantor.

3. As a matter of course, the interpretation of a juristic act in a judgment clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have granted to the act of expressing the intent of the parties, where there is a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of the contract between the parties, the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the contract document should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up

On the other hand, a contract for fidelity guarantee refers to an agreement under which an employer agrees to compensate for the damages suffered by an employer due to an act committed by an employee in an employment relationship, regardless of the title of acceptance

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2023 delivered on April 28, 1987). In this case, at the time of entry of C into D, the defendant prepared a written financial guarantee separately from the written financial guarantee against C, and the person who prepared the said written financial guarantee.