Where an employer pays a retirement allowance to an employee, the validity of a contract for fidelity guarantee (=ex officio termination)

Where an employer pays retirement allowances to an employee, a contract of fidelity guarantee between the employer and the guarantor of the employee shall become void as a matter of course, regardless of whether the employment relationship between the employer and the employee continues even after the payment of retirement allowances.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-

Mobilization Securities Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Newyang, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] U.S. and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na20676 delivered on November 2, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Where an employer pays a retirement allowance to an employee, a contract of fidelity guarantee between the employer and the guarantor of the employee shall become void as a matter of course, regardless of whether the employment relationship between the employer and the employee continues even after the payment of the retirement allowance (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2195, Feb. 11, 1986).

The court below held on May 26, 1978 that the non-party was a member of the company of the plaintiff company and received retirement allowances on April 1, 1994 after the non-party was admitted to the company. The defendants concluded a contract for fidelity guarantee against the non-party for a five-year period between the plaintiff and the non-party at the time of the non-party's re-admission. On the other hand, the plaintiff introduced an interim settlement and performance rate system for the business rationalization at around April 1, 1997 and received the application from the employees. The non-party also became a member of the performance rate from the time when he received an interim retirement allowance on April 1, 1997. However, the non-party was employed in the business division of the plaintiff's branch, and the non-party was justified in finding that the non-party did not suffer loss of 60 million won on October 29, 197, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal and there is no violation of the legal principles as to the non-party's retirement guarantee.

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

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)