The case where the guarantor's exemption from liability is recognized because the employer's negligence and negligence of supervision are serious.

If the fact that an employee in charge of deposit business embezzleds KRW 12,50,000 as a deposit, and there was a fact that his additional compensation was made, the employer would be deprived of the above opportunity of the employee to terminate the contract for fidelity guarantee in order to avoid liability for embezzlement that may arise in the future by notifying and giving the fidelity guarantor with the above unfaithful private information. In addition, even if the employee discovered the embezzlement of the above employee, it would be reasonable for the employer to exempt the fidelity guarantor from liability for the breach of the contract for fidelity guarantee as a matter of course, even though the employer should be given the opportunity to terminate the contract in order to avoid liability for the embezzlement that might arise in the future. In addition, even if the employee discovered the embezzlement of the above employee, as well as the change of the employee's duty and supervision, it would be necessary to thoroughly prevent the recurrence of the accident.

Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, Article 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Gwangju Mutual Savings Bank

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court Decision 84Gahap101)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,101,440 and the amount at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the next day of service to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution.

In the event that Nonparty 1 entered Nonparty 1 as an employee of the Plaintiff Company on January 29, 198, and the Defendants incurred losses to the Plaintiff Company due to the intent or gross negligence of Nonparty 1, his father during his tenure of office, the Defendants were not subject to dispute between the parties, and the lower court and the lower court’s 1 to 27 testimony that is recognized as genuine (except for the part which was not believed later) of the Defendants’ 1 and Nonparty 1’s Embezzlement’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s 1982. The Defendants were not subject to dispute as to the Defendant’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s 1 and Nonparty 2’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s 1 and Nonparty 1’s Embezzlement of this case’s Embezzlement of this case’s 1 and the Defendants.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection against the defendants is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court below is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' interference with deliberation (Presiding Judge)