Cases where the original judgment was found to contain an error of incomplete reasoning;

A fidelity guarantor who has provided a fidelity guarantee that he/she would compensate for all civil damages caused by intention or gross negligence while in office shall be ordered to compensate for damages caused by the guarantor's illegal act, and the surety shall have consumed public funds intentionally or by negligence, but it shall be judged that he/she did not have the reason that the guarantor's gross negligence was not clear.

Article 393(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 61No301 delivered on January 15, 1962

The part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

On the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 of the defendants' agent Nos. 1, 1, 3 through 14, and 10 of the above Nos. 1, 3 through 14, and 10 of the above Nos. 1, 1957, the court below explained to the plaintiff on February 14, 1957 through June 23, 1958 that when comprehensively considering the testimony of Non-party 1, Non-party 2, Non-party 3, Non-party 4, Non-party 5, and Non-party 6, etc. without any theory of formation, the court below held that the defendant 1 of the court below was liable to compensate the plaintiff for any damage caused by intention or gross negligence while in office of the above defendant 1 of the court below as of February 14, 1957, and provided that the defendant et al. did not compensate the plaintiff for any damage caused by the above defendant 1's total amount of public funds 21,754,7800.

However, as decided by the court below, the defendants are liable only for the damages caused by the intention or gross negligence of the defendants 1 of the court below. Thus, in recognizing the above facts, the court below held that the defendant 1 consumeds public funds by intention or negligence, and did not clarify whether the negligence was the progress of the decision, but did not meet the reasons that the defendant 1 was liable for the full amount of compensation with the defendants.

In addition, according to the above facts-finding data, according to the statements of Gap evidence Nos. 4,7,8 and the testimony of non-party Nos. 1 and non-party Nos. 3 of the first instance court, among the evidence, the court below's decision is clear that the non-party Nos. 4,658,295 of the money embezzled among the money to be deposited into the bank in the name of the non-party No. 1 among the non-party No. 1's business trip, among the public funds that the non-party Nos. 4,7,8 and the non-party Nos. 1 and the non-party No. 3 of the first instance court consumed intentionally or by negligence, it is hard to find that the court below's judgment contains no errors in the misapprehension of the grounds

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by omitting an explanation of other grounds of appeal.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum leapbal leapbal leaps