Whether a contract for fidelity guarantee constitutes an incidental guarantee contract, not a damage security contract;

In the event a guarantor causes a loss to the guarantor due to intention or negligence while in office, the guarantor is not an independent guarantee contract, but an additional guarantee contract with the content that the guarantor shall be held liable for all civil responsibilities for such loss, and only if the guarantor is liable for the loss to the employer, the guarantor shall be deemed as the additional guarantee contract with the effect that the guarantor will perform his/her obligation as the guarantor.

Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da669 Decided June 22, 1965

May 28, 1974

6Da490 delivered on June 22, 1976

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na2391 delivered on April 13, 1976

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The terms and conditions of the contract guaranteeing the identity of the non-party, who is a public official belonging to the court of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, provide that the non-party to the contract that guarantees the identity of the non-party, "if the non-party to the contract causes damage to the non-party due to intention or negligence during his employment, the guarantor, etc. shall be held jointly and severally liable for all civil liability for the vehicle." This contract is not an independent guarantee contract, such as this independent guarantee contract, but only if the non-party to the guarantor bears the liability of the non-party to the plaintiff as the guarantor, the non-party to the contract is not an independent guarantee contract, such as this decision of the court below, but it is reasonable to deem that the contract is an additional guarantee contract, so that the defendants will perform its obligation as the guarantor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Da669, Jun. 22, 1965; 73Da1885

Therefore, the court below did not err in its interpretation that the defendants' fidelity guarantee contract was a damage security contract and affected the judgment.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed by accepting the argument on appeal to this purport, and the decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges in order to have the original judgment re-examine and determine the case.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)