Notice of the fidelity guarantor;

If the fidelity guarantor does not notify the fidelity guarantor that his/her duties have been changed, the reason for rejection of notification can not be exempted from the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor unless there are special circumstances to cancel the fidelity guarantee contract, unless the fidelity guarantor has notified the fact.

Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Incheon City

Defendant

Seoul District Court Incheon Branch of the First Instance (75 Gohap410)

The appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by each person.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 1,789,997 won and the amount with 5% interest per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

(2) On the other hand, the court below's judgment against the plaintiff is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff money with 1,289,97 won and 5% interest per annum from November 2, 1975 to the date of full payment. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution declaration.

(Defendant) The part against the Defendant in the original judgment is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

1. When Nonparty 1 was employed as a daily employee of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the fact that the above Nonparty 1 concluded a contract for the guarantee of identity with Nonparty 2 under the Financial Guarantee Ordinance of the 1973 and Article 72 and Incheon Special Metropolitan City, if it lost or damaged the cash, goods, and other properties in the city of Plaintiff 1, there is no dispute between the parties, 2-1 of evidence 2, 3 of evidence 4 of the same title (written indictment), 3-4 of evidence 3 of the same title (written opinion of Defendant 4), 3-4 of the judgment below among the written statements of Nonparty 1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, 7, 6-1, 6-1, 6-2, 7, 1971 to 30-1, 1974, 197.

2. The defendant confirmed that the plaintiff's market price discovered embezzlement other than the non-party 1's main case on September 1973 and August 1974, and around September 1974, since the above non-party's duties were changed from the city of the city of the city of the plaintiff to housing and work, the defendant's liability to compensate for losses thereafter was exempted. Thus, the defendant's liability to compensate for damages could not be satisfied. Thus, the defendant's failure to notify the defendant as alleged in the defendant, as recognized after the plaintiff's market price, is recognized. However, even according to the defendant's prior proof, it cannot be recognized that there is no special circumstance that the defendant would have terminated the contract for the guarantee of identity even if the plaintiff notified the defendant of the above facts, the reason for the refusal of the above notification can not be fully exempted from the defendant's liability, and it is nothing more than a reason for determining the compensation amount.

3. Meanwhile, in full view of the aforementioned witness’s testimony of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4, around September 1973, the Plaintiff confirmed that Nonparty 1 collected KRW 120,00 from Nonparty 7 with the above project expense and excessive borrowed money and embezzled. On November 1, 1973, Nonparty 1 confirmed that Nonparty 1 collected KRW 170,000 from Nonparty 3 with the same project expense title and embezzled, even though he confirmed that Nonparty 1 collected KRW 170,00 from Nonparty 3 with the same project expense title, he had the debt debt who demanded only the compensation for damages, who had been on the demand of compensation for damages sustained further expansion of damages due to the fact that he had the above Nonparty worked in his position on his own after moving his house from the city to his work to his work on or around April 1975, the Defendant did not know the above fact that Nonparty 1 had been on the part of Nonparty 1’s tort and changed his work place for a long time after Nonparty 1 entered the above accusation, and the Defendant did not recognize that part of Nonparty 1’s witness’s negligence over 10.

4. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 5% per annum from November 2, 1975 to the full payment date, on the records that the plaintiff is an interest rate of 50,000,000 won and the appeal of the plaintiff is the next day for the delivery of the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for delay is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just, and all of the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of appeal costs.

Judges Kim Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)