The validity of a contract for fidelity guarantee after a company which is an employer merges with another company

A contract for fidelity guarantee shall continue to exist as long as an employee continues to be employed by another company even after a company which is an employer is merged with another company.

Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Korean Bank, Inc.

Defendant 1 and six others

Busan District Court Decision 65Na176 delivered on August 18, 1966, Busan High Court Decision 65Na176 delivered on August 18, 196

The appeals are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each of the defendants.

(1) We examine Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4’s grounds of appeal;

(1) As to the part on Defendant 1:

According to the original judgment, Defendant 1 was the director in charge of the audit of the plaintiff bank's North Korea branch office in Busan and was the co-defendant 1 of the original judgment. The co-defendant 2 of the original judgment is the head of the branch office in charge of the audit and inspection, and if the audit and inspection team was transferred to the audit and inspection team by comparing the deposit and inspection team with the head of the savings bank in charge of the audit and inspection team every day after the completion of the business affairs, the head of the original judgment stated that the audit and inspection team of the original judgment would be appropriate, and the person in charge of the audit and inspection team would report the above audit and inspection team to the head office every day by re-verification of the facts as to the above audit and inspection, and it was impossible for the court below to find that the above co-defendant 1 of the first instance court's co-defendant 3 of the original judgment and the co-defendant 3 of the original judgment's co-defendant 1 to February 12, 1963 to find that there was no illegality in the first co-defendant's relation to the audit and inspection system.

(2) As to the part concerning Defendant 2, 3, and 4, as long as an employee is continuously employed by another company even after the company is merged with the other company, it is reasonable to interpret that the contract for fidelity guarantee remains in force unless there are other special circumstances. Thus, as at the time when Defendant 1, who is the guarantor, worked for the non-party 1, the Defendants contracted for the above company for the above defendant 1 for the above defendant 1, and even if the above company was merged with the company like the theory of lawsuit, it is obvious that the defendant 1, who is the guarantor, is continuously employed by the plaintiff company, barring any special circumstances, the contract for the defendant's theory of lawsuit shall continue to exist between the plaintiff company and the non-party 4, and even if the above non-party company's business is different from the theory of lawsuit with the plaintiff bank affairs, the court below acknowledged the above non-party 1's liability for damages arising during the above company's work as well as the defendant 1's damages arising out of the above contract for supervision cannot be considered in the above reasons for the defendant 1's damages.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 5 and 6, and interpret that even if there was negligence, such as the theory, in the occurrence of this case, it does not constitute the grounds for exemption of the fidelity guarantor, and it is merely a reason for considering the amount of compensation to be borne by the fidelity guarantor. According to the original judgment, the court below is without merit, based on the premise that the plaintiff's negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, constitutes the grounds for exemption, since it can be viewed that the plaintiff's negligence, such as the plaintiff's negligence, and other circumstances, were determined in consideration of the amount of compensation to be borne by the fidelity guarantor.

(3) We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 7’s attorney;

(1) As to the first ground for appeal:

According to the original judgment, the court below acknowledged, based on the timely evidence, the office procedures and audit procedures at the time of withdrawal of the current account, and acknowledged the defendant's co-defendant 1 and the head of the savings deposit account branch office in the court of first instance, which is the defendant's guarantor, in collusion with the defendant's co-defendant 3 and non-party 1, who is the savings deposit account holder, with the defendant's co-defendant 1 and the head of the savings deposit account branch office in the court of first instance, and found the fact that the defendant committed such a tort as acknowledged by the court below. Thus, there is no error of law by reviewing the record, and therefore, there is no reason to hold that

(ii)with respect to Section 2,

According to the original judgment, the court below recognized the purport of the judgment on the grounds of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and even if it assumed that there was an error in the judgment on the evidence of the theory of lawsuit on family affairs, according to the original judgment, even if the copy of the theory was excluded from the duplicate evidence, the court below decided that the above facts could be recognized in (a) above (i) as other evidence. Since considering the case record, it can be viewed as evidence other than the above duplicate evidence, the theory of lawsuit ultimately does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and even if there was no objection such as the victim's theory from the victim himself, it cannot be viewed as a material to deny the tort committed by the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court, the guarantor, and it cannot be said that there was an error in the omission of judgment such as the theory of lawsuit on the original judgment, and therefore, there

Therefore, this case's ground of appeal is without any further appointment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong