Notice of the user to the guarantor of the fidelity;

Even if an employee who was an intern of a department store at the time of fidelity guarantee was promoted to a commissioned member thereafter, the maximum amount of liability for each transaction shall be changed from KRW 1,500,000 to KRW 1,500,000, and if the content of duties is the same, the employer has no obligation to notify the fidelity guarantor of the details of the change of duties of the employee.

Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Seoul High Court Decision 201

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Central District Court (76Gahap648) in the first instance trial

1. The defendants' appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the appeal by the Defendants is assessed against the Defendants, and the part arising from the Plaintiffs’ incidental appeal.

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,303,745 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the service of the instant gushes to the day of full payment.

2. The court costs are assessed against the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution

The Defendants:

1. The part of the original judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances;

As an incidental appeal, the Plaintiff:

1. Revocation of the part of the original judgment against the plaintiff

2. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,653,745 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the service of the instant gushes to the day of full payment.

3. The costs of the lawsuit were assessed against the Defendants in both the first and second instances and the declaration of provisional execution.

On November 7, 1974, when the non-party 1 became an external member of the plaintiff company, in case where the non-party 1 sells the plaintiff company's goods to the plaintiff company for the next three years while in office, due to intentional or gross negligence, leakage of confidential information, association with outside and any other act in violation of a position, etc., the fact that the non-party 1 provided a personal guarantee to compensate the plaintiff jointly and severally does not conflict between the parties. The non-party 1 provided a evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (written evidence) without dispute, evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3 (each notice), evidence No. 4-1 and 3 (each notice), the testimony of the above witness, part of the result of verifying the criminal record of the party member's testimony, and the purport of oral argument, where the non-party 1 sold the plaintiff company's goods to the non-party company as an external member of the plaintiff company for the next three years, and the non-party 1 sold the goods to the plaintiff company and received the goods to the non-party 1 paid for sale to the plaintiff company from 3 to the same price without delay.

The defendants defense that the plaintiff did not notify the defendants who are the fidelity guarantor at the time of being employed by the plaintiff company and the contents of his duties were changed. Thus, according to the witness non-party 2 and non-party 1's testimony, although the non-party 1 was promoted from the probationary officer to the commissioned member, the non-party 1 could not be held liable to cancel the contract for the fidelity guarantee. However, according to the witness non-party 2 and non-party 1's testimony, although the non-party 1 was promoted from the probationary officer to the commissioned member, the non-party 1 would be promoted from the probationary officer to the commissioned member, the non-party 1 would be raised to the level of 1,500,000 won per month, and the contents of his duties are the same. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's obligation to notify the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants' defense that is premised on the plaintiff's duty to notify is groundless.

Defendant 2, when the non-party 1 was promoted from the probationary officer to the commissioned member, the same defendant raised a defense that the defendant provided the same defendant's guarantee liability limit to the plaintiff company as 50,000 won, and again provided a new guarantee to the plaintiff company. However, the testimony portion of the non-party 1 of the above witness, consistent with the above defendant's defense, cannot be trusted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff as the guarantor of the non-party 1. On the other hand, although the above witness's act of breach of duty was continued over a long-term period of time, it can be recognized that the damages increased due to the failure to properly supervise the same person, and the plaintiff's negligence is not sufficient to exempt the defendants from the liability for damages of this case. However, the plaintiff's above negligence is not a reason to be considered in determining the amount of damages. Thus, the health expenses for the plaintiff's damages which the defendants should compensate, the above negligence for the plaintiff's damages recognized above, and the above defendant 1 is the non-party 1's wife and the non-party 1's high-class 4 degree, and the defendant 3 is between the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's high-class 1's wife, and the defendants are liable for damages in consideration of various circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendants did not have any interest.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above sum of KRW 1,650,00 and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from March 12, 1976 to the full payment rate, on the record, that is, the day following the delivery day of the instant gusheet, sought by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate within the scope of the above recognition, and it is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is reasonable, and is dismissed. The judgment of the court that forms the above conclusion is just and the plaintiff's incidental appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)