(a) Requirements to exempt the fidelity guarantor from liability due to his/her neglect to notify the employer;

(b) The case holding that there is a special circumstance that, if the employer notified, the guarantor would have terminated the contract for fidelity guarantee;

A. Even if an employer has a duty to notify under Article 4 of the Act on the Guarantee of Fidelity, if the employer does not immediately exempt the fidelity guarantor from the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor because the employer did not notify of the fact that the relationship with the fidelity guarantor would have been terminated if the relationship with the fidelity guarantor was notified of such notification, and it can be deemed that the fidelity guarantor deprived the employer of an opportunity for termination of the contract, the responsibility of the

B. The case holding that, when considering the amount, circumstances, etc. of an illegal loan by the person against whom the fidelity guarantee was provided, there is a special circumstance that the fidelity guarantor would have terminated the contract for the fidelity guarantee if he would have been notified of the above illegal loan.

Articles 4 and 5 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1221 Decided December 24, 1985 (Gong1986, 309) (Gong100 Decided January 20, 1987)

Yong-Nam Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na6857 delivered on November 19, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's defendant 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

2. Even if an employer has a duty to notify the fidelity guarantor under Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, it is not clear that the employer did not immediately exempt the fidelity guarantor from its responsibility because it did not notify the fidelity guarantor of the fact that the relationship with the fidelity guarantor would have been terminated if it had been notified of such fact, the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor would be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu100, Jan. 20, 1987). Therefore, in this case, whether there was a special circumstance that the defendant, the fidelity guarantor, would have terminated the contract for the fidelity guarantee if he received the above notification, and even if based on the facts established by the court below, Nonparty 2, the representative director of the Plaintiff Credit Union, was the head of the Plaintiff Credit Union, and Nonparty 3, the vice head of the Plaintiff Credit Union, was exempt from the liability of the fidelity guarantor, but was deprived of an opportunity to collect the loan to the industry of the principal of the loan after the expiration of 0 years after the expiration of 10 years of loan.

In the same sense, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was a pro-friendly parent of the above non-party 1 when examining the above circumstances together with the amount and circumstances of the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's representative director. However, it is reasonable to view that the above non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's notification obligation under the Act on the Guarantee of Personal Identity was made

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense of exemption merely based on the above reasons is not sufficient to conduct a necessary hearing, or there is an error of law by misunderstanding the employer's duty to notify and the legal principles as to the right of termination of the guarantor's right to termination under Articles 4 and 5 of the Guarantee of Secrecy Act, and it is clear that this affected the

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)