(a) The need to protect the rights in the event of a claim for damages even though the adjudication by the members of the Council became final and conclusive even though the order to compensate has been destroyed;

(b) Actual cases concerning whether the employer's right to claim compensation due to the act of an employee has arisen after the fidelity guarantee;

A. In a case where the adjudication of compensation is rendered by the members of the National Tax Collection Act, the above judgment can be executed pursuant to the provisions of the disposition on default, so the claim for compensation for damages need not be protected separately.

(b) cannot make any assertion different from the content of the determination, if the determination of reimbursement is finalized.

Article 22 of the References Act, Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na243 delivered on May 25, 1962, 200

The appeal against the defendant's silence in the original judgment shall be dismissed.

The part of the original judgment against Defendant Lee Young-jin and Song-chul shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the defendant's silence shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The gist of the plaintiff's grounds of appeal is that the court below's decision that the defendant 1 was not liable for damages caused by sun-dried salt loss against the plaintiff. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 for the reasons that the plaintiff's failure to pay damages was not due to the above defendant's reasons, and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff 1 for the reasons that the plaintiff 1's failure to pay damages was not due to the above defendant's cause, and for the period from July 31, 1957 to July 16, 1960, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff 2 for the reasons that the plaintiff 1's failure to pay damages was not due to the defendant 1's failure to pay damages. The plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff 2 for the above reasons that the plaintiff 1's failure to pay damages was not due to the plaintiff 1's failure to pay damages due to the plaintiff 2's failure to pay damages due to the plaintiff 1's failure to pay damages due to the plaintiff 12's failure to pay damages.

Next, the grounds of appeal against the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 shall be examined.

As explained in the former part, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 against the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 against the defendant 2 on the premise that the above defendant is not liable for compensation is illegal, and as long as the court below's determination that the defendant's claim against the defendant 1 was not illegal, it does not constitute an error of law in rejecting the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 against the defendant 3 on the premise that the above defendant's claim against the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 was made after the fidelity guarantee, and the court below's determination as to whether the plaintiff's claim for compensation against the defendant 1 was made or other issues should be made. However, the part against the defendant 2

As above, as the plaintiff's appeal is explained, the part concerning the defendant Lee Young-jin and the defendant Song-jin among the original judgment is reversed (the above two defendants' answers are without merit) and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The judges of the Supreme Court, both judges (Presiding Judge) and Magyeong, Mag-Jak, the highest leapble leapbal of Red Mags