If there is an error in calculation of the amount of damages, if there is a error in calculation, it is a matter of correction of the judgment, but if it is based on the error amount of calculation, this error will have an effect on the result of the judgment.

If there is an error in calculation of the amount of damages, if there is a error in calculation, it is a matter of correction of the judgment, but if it is based on the error amount of calculation, this error will have an effect on the result of the judgment.

Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 393 of the Civil Procedure Act

Chang-gun Agricultural Cooperatives

Defendant 1 and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na194 decided May 25, 1972

Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendants is reversed;

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendants' attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

If the total amount of the illegal disposition is calculated on the basis of the original judgment's acknowledgement, it is recognized that there was an error in the calculation of the theory of the lawsuit on the merits of the original judgment, which became 2,874,086 won in 2,86 won, and if this is considered as a simple calculation error, it is not necessary to reverse the original judgment on the part of the defendant (1) at least on the basis of the correction of the original judgment's calculation amount. However, in relation to the defendant (2) through (6), the lower court set-off based on the amount of such error calculated on the original judgment's calculation amount, and thus, this error has an impact on the result of the judgment, and the original judgment on this point has a reasonable ground, which has a debate on the appeal on this point, cannot be exempted

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, the purport of the judgment in the original judgment is that the defendant (2) through (6) did not require the plaintiff to pay the original amount jointly with the defendant (1) and that the defendant (2) did not order the payment to the defendants on the premise of the guarantee solidarity such as the theory of lawsuit, and it is sufficient to review the original judgment and records, and there is no error like the theory in the original judgment, and there is no reason for the argument.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The judgment of the court below held that, in full view of the testimony of the court of first instance, the first instance witness Kim Jong-soo and the first instance court's testimony of the first instance court to transport fertilizers to the warehouse of the defendant (1) and the first instance court to the warehouse of the defendant (1), the defendant (1) bears the duty of storage only after the delivery of the deposited goods, but at least the defendant (1) bears the duty of storage, as long as the defendant (1) takes the seal impression of the deposited goods to the warehouse manager of the warehouse management and takes over the receipt of the fertilizer by entrusting the receipt of the receipt of the receipt of the fertilizer, as long as the defendant (1) takes the delivery of the receipt of the fertilizer by entrusting the receipt of the receipt of the warehouse to the non-party 1, the warehouse manager of the warehouse management office, and the defendant (1) takes the responsibility for the delivery of the deposited goods.

However, even if the evidence listed in the original judgment is examined by the record, it cannot be recognized that the defendant (1) sent the seal imprint affixed to the joint operation establishment to the non-party Kim Yong-Nam, who is the custodian of the warehouse, and delegated the management of the warehouse. This erred by finding the facts without any evidence, and this may affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal on this point is reasonable, and the part against the defendants in the original judgment against the defendants cannot be reversed, and the case concerning this part shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

However, in view of the purport of the judgment in the original judgment, the court below did not regard the defendant (1) as not only concerning the defendant (2) but also about the defendant (2) through (6), and it cannot be viewed that there was an omission of judgment like the theory in the original judgment, and there is no reason to discuss.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, the purpose of the contract for fidelity guarantee is to compensate for the damages suffered by the employer due to the act of an employee in a subordinate relationship with the employer, and the court below explained that the defendant (1) is not a person who is the employee of the plaintiff's association, and the defendant (2) within the defendant (6) is not a guarantor under the Act on the Guarantee of Fidelity Guarantee, and it is not reasonable to reject the argument on the reduction

The grounds of appeal No. 6 are examined.

However, according to the evidence No. 28 of this contract, the defendant (2) through (6) put his signature and seal on this contract as the defendant (1). Thus, the defendant (2) through (6) shall be deemed to have promised to approve the whole contents of this contract and to perform them as they are. Thus, it is not possible to say that the agreement on the extension of the period of the debate stated in this contract has been turned down by the so-called so-called side word, and it cannot be viewed that there is no effect on the defendant (2) and (6). According to the evidence No. 28 of this contract, the period is set one year after the lapse of one year, but it appears to the purport that the contract is scheduled to be terminated, not to have an intention to terminate the contract but to extend the contract as a matter of course after the lapse of one year, so it cannot be viewed that the contract is limited to one year, and the defendant (2) through (6) concluded the guarantee contract with the same document as evidence No. 28 of this contract, and there is no reason to conclude that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants is no reason to cancel the contract.

For the same reasons, this decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho