The guarantor's liability for the tort of an employee who has been arbitrarily neglected by the guarantor;

Where the guarantor has received assistance from an employee who is his/her father, the guarantor shall also bear liability for damages caused by the tort of the employee.

Article 1 (2) of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

petitioner group (North Korea)

Defendant 1 and one other

Cheongju area in the first instance, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1751 delivered on May 16, 1968

The part of the judgment of the court below pertaining to the defendant Lee Jong-ro and Ko Young-young is reversed, and this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s ground of appeal against the above Defendants.

The court below held as follows with respect to the plaintiff's claim against two defendants 1 and 2. In other words, it is difficult to see that the guarantor is not one's own illegal act of the guarantor, but is also liable for damages caused by his irregular act of his employee, and thus, it does not recognize the defendant's liability. However, in performing the duties that the guarantor is liable for the third party as an employee and the guarantor is responsible for the damages caused by the accident caused by his employee's performance of his duties, it is reasonable to view that the guarantor bears the responsibility of the guarantor as to the damages caused by the accident caused by his employee's performance of duties. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on this point, and therefore, it is reasonable to reverse the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant Lee Si-si, and the part as to the two persons, and remand this part to the Seoul High Court.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet