Reasons for consideration in determining the amount of damages of the fidelity guarantor;

In determining the amount of the fidelity guarantor's compensation, even though the guarantor has repeatedly embezzled the misconduct, the plaintiff has been deprived of the opportunity to terminate the fidelity guarantee contract by making late notification to the guarantor of the misconduct, the amount of embezzlement when the plaintiff first discovered the embezzlement of the guarantor, the defendant's liability for the fidelity guarantee by taking into account the fact that the guarantor has provided the fidelity guarantee as the relative of the guarantor, etc.

Article 6 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294No842 delivered on March 29, 1962 (10 ① civil268 delivered on March 29, 196, and Article 6(3)65 of the Guarantee of Secrecy Act)

Type Insurance Co., Ltd

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana12502) in the first instance trial

All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Plaintiff are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from appeal by the defendant, etc. shall be borne by the defendant, etc., and the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As the plaintiff's representative, the defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of 620,227 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the day following the service of the complaint of this case (as of January 16, 1971) to the day of full payment.

The costs of the lawsuit are the preliminary claim with the judgment that is to be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution, and the defendant, etc. shall pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 620,227 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from the day following the service of the complaint of this case (as of January 16, 1971) to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit were assessed against the defendant, etc., and the declaration of provisional execution was sought.

The defendant, etc. shall revoke the part against the defendant, etc.

All the costs of lawsuit have been assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances, and the plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

Defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay 420,227 won to the Plaintiff.

The first and second courts tried to declare the judgment that all the costs of lawsuit are borne by the defendant, etc. and provisional execution.

On September 30, 1968, the defendant et al. provided a personal guarantee for the period of five years for the joint and several damages to the plaintiff company when the non-party 1 became a member of the collection office of the plaintiff company, only when the non-party 1 caused damages to the plaintiff company by intention or negligence in the course of performing his duties. According to the contents of the evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3, each of which is recognized by the non-party 2's testimony, and the testimony of the above witness and the non-party 3, the non-party 1 can recognize the fact that the non-party 1 embezzled and consumes 620,227 won out of the insurance money collected from the plaintiff company's insurance money collected from the plaintiff company from the non-party 1 during the period from January 10, 1969 to May 8, 1970, and the part of the testimony of the non-party 1 of the court below and the testimony of the non-party 1 of the non-party 2 cannot be trusted.

Therefore, the defendant et al. may not be exempted from liability based on the above contract for fidelity guarantee. Furthermore, in light of the whole purport of the testimony of the non-party 3, non-party 2, and non-party 1 as the representative director of the plaintiff company, the non-party 1 was employed for the plaintiff company upon the recommendation of the non-party 1. Although the above non-party embezzled the insurance money amount equivalent to the above recognition repeatedly for a long period from January 10, 1969 to May 8, 1970, the non-party 2 did not discover the above misconduct as a result of neglecting supervision and guidance of the above non-party. Meanwhile, on March 20, 1970, the plaintiff company did not know the above non-party 1's identity guarantee with the non-party 2's identity guarantee, and it is reasonable that the non-party 1 was deprived of the above non-party's opportunity to enforce the contract for fidelity guarantee and the non-party 2 did not know the above non-party 1's identity guarantee.

Therefore, the defendant et al. is jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay in civil law at the rate of 5% per annum from January 22, 1971 to the full payment date, which is clear on the record that the defendant et al. is the delivery date of the complaint of this case (as of January 16, 1971) to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s claim for the principal lawsuit is justified in the above recognition limit and it is reasonable to accept the remaining claims, and the remaining claims are reasonable and dismissed. As such, the original judgment based on this conclusion is just and without any reason, the defendant et al.'s appeal and the plaintiff's appeal are dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. The bearing of the costs of appeal is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95, 89, and 93 of the same Act.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)