Validity of the contract for fidelity Guarantee

Unless a contract for fidelity guarantee for a technician of skills is stipulated, a contract for fidelity guarantee without a fixed period shall be valid for three years from the date of its formation.

Article 2 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Attorney Tae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2662 delivered on November 20, 1980

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The court below cited the judgment of the court of first instance and judged as follows. In other words, the non-party 1, who is a driver at the time of the plaintiff, suffered damages from the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 due to the gross driving negligence as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thereby, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount by paying the damages amounting to 12,643,349 won. However, the defendant is liable for compensating the above damages suffered by the plaintiff's market price since the defendant entered into a financial guarantee contract on February 3, 1975 when employing the non-party 1 as the driver, and considering the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, such as the motive to make the guarantee, it is reasonable to determine the defendant's compensation amount as KRW 7,00,000,000.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the records, the above financial guarantee contract entered into by the defendant on February 3, 1975 is a contract with the purport that if the above non-party 1, who is an employee of the plaintiff's Si, caused damage to the plaintiff's city due to intention or negligence while in office, the defendant, who is the guarantor, bears all the liability for such damage, and it is not a contract for the guarantee of identity under Article 1 (2) of the Fidelity Guarantee Act. In the financial guarantee document (Evidence No. 1) with respect to the above contract entered in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is clear that the above contract for the guarantee of identity is a contract without a fixed period of time, and there is no evidence that the contract constitutes a contract for the guarantee of identity of the skilled person. Thus, the validity of the above financial guarantee contract is valid for three years from February 3, 1975 to February 3, 197.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff's market price due to the accident of this case occurred in February 20, 1978, which occurred after the judgment of the court below, was affected by the judgment because it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the liability of the guarantor under the Act on the Guarantee of Fidelity and did not complete the deliberation.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)