The case where the fidelity guarantor is deemed to have a substantial relation to the damage liability.

If the Plaintiff Union reimburses the amount equivalent to twice the amount of the embezzlement fertilizer in accordance with the provisions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s directives due to the embezzlement incident of “A”, the guarantor of “A” shall be liable to compensate for the amount of money reimbursed by the Commission and the Cooperative.

Article 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Incheon-gun Agricultural Cooperatives

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1664 delivered on September 2, 1969, Decision 68Na1664 delivered on August 2, 1969

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ agent’ grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 24(3)2 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s Directive No. 117(s) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Directive, when an accident is caused intentionally, the Plaintiff Union reimburses the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for the amount equivalent to twice the fertilizer price in the notification of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. However, according to the facts established by the court below in this case, the Plaintiff Union is obligated to compensate the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for two times the amount of the fertilizer’s embezzlement due to the Nonparty’s embezzlement, who was an employee. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants, the Nonparty’s guarantor, are liable to compensate the entire amount of the money that the Plaintiff Union has paid to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. This is because, in the above case, compensating the Plaintiff Union by multiplying the amount of the accident amount by the amount of the fidelity amount is merely a penal provision for the violation of the duty of care of the Plaintiff Union itself, and therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate for the entire amount of the accident amount, which is a violation of the duty of care of the Nonparty.

This conclusion does not result in the Defendants’ guarantee of the duty of care by the Plaintiff Union itself. The lower judgment is justifiable and this cannot be said to be contrary to Article 1(b) of the Identity Guarantee Act. The lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in its entirety, as it is groundless, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

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

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)