The validity of a contract for fidelity guarantee made by a person who is not at least 15 persons of age 15 in violation of the Seoul Metropolitan Government's established rules.

A contract for fidelity guarantee with a person below the grade shall not be null and void as a matter of course on the ground that he/she has at least 15 persons who can become a fidelity guarantor for employees of Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Freeboard and two others

Seoul District Court Decision 62Na381 delivered on October 18, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant Ho-gu's attorney and his attorney, the attorney Park Jong-tae's attorney, and the answer by the plaintiff's attorney are subsequent to the details of the appellate brief and the answer.

(1) The gist of the ground of appeal No. 1 is that a person who can be a fidelity guarantor for an employee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who is an employee of the plaintiff, is at least 15, etc., even though the contract for the fidelity guarantee made by the defendants, who are at least 15, etc., cannot be null and void in this case, despite the fact that the contract for the fidelity guarantee made by the defendants, who are at least 15, etc., cannot be deemed null and void in this case. Furthermore, even if the court below did not examine the name and evidence of this point, it cannot be found that the non-exercise of the right to use the right to use the right to use the tin, and even if it is assumed that the established rules such as family theory are established, it is merely the purport that a person who pays at least 15, etc., of the No. 15, etc., shall be identified as a fidelity guarantee in order to secure claims arising from the fidelity guarantee, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be accepted as an independent opinion.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the summary of the judgment in question is that there is an error against the rules of evidence in the original judgment, but it is not possible to find that the original judgment and the records of the original judgment were in violation of the rules of experience or logical rules in the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding even after examining the original judgment and the records of the original judgment, so the theory of lawsuit ultimately leads to the criticism of the original judgment by taking into account the civil rights concerning the preparation of

(3) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the gist of the judgment below is that the plaintiff, the employer, was at fault in this case, and that the court below reduced the amount of the plaintiff's claim by recognizing part of the plaintiff's negligence, but the degree of reduction is too excessive. According to the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's negligence like the plaintiff's theory, and it is clear that the court below reduced approximately 1 minutes out of the plaintiff's claim amount by taking into account various other circumstances, and it cannot be acknowledged that there was an error of law in determining the compensation amount of the defendants, the fidelity guarantor recognized by the court below, as the court below, in full view of the degree of the plaintiff's negligence and various other circumstances shown in the records, and there is no error in determining the compensation amount of the defendants, the defendant's damage liability

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,