A. The scope of the establishment

(b) Succession of debts for fidelity guarantee;

A. A contract for fidelity guarantee cannot be deemed to necessarily involve only a typical employment contract, and is in a relationship between the obligee and the guarantor with a broad meaning.

B. Although a contract for fidelity guarantee loses its effect due to the death of the fidelity guarantor, a guarantee obligation under a contract for fidelity guarantee already occurred before the death of the fidelity guarantor shall be succeeded to by the heir.

Articles 1, 7, and 8 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

1. Supreme Court Decision 65Da1785 decided Nov. 9, 1965 (Article 1 (22) 2) (Article 75 of the Act on the Guarantee of Civil Second Fidelity), Supreme Court Decision 71Da2747 decided Feb. 29, 1972 (Article 7 (1) 97 of the Act on the Guarantee of Civil Second Fidelity), Article 7 (1) 1001 house 201 local 130)

Delivery Type

Cho Standards et al.

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (86Gahap1260 delivered on July 1, 200)

1. Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendants ordering the Plaintiff to pay the same amount exceeding the amount equivalent to the annual rate of 5% from July 2, 1986 to April 23, 198, and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the part against the Defendants ordering the Plaintiff to pay the same amount exceeding the amount equivalent to 600,000 won per annum, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2. The remaining appeals by the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into six parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the defendants, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall pay the amount equivalent to 3,443,653 won for each of the defendant's early order, Song Ho-ju, the amount equivalent to 2,295768 won for each of them, and the amount equivalent to 25 percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part against the defendants in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The judgment that the total cost of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff shall pay the amount of money equal to 1,813,121 won for each of the defendant's early order, Song Ho-seok, the amount of 1,208,748 won for each of the defendant's 1,208,748 won and 25 percent per annum for each of them from July 2, 1986 to the full payment.

The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The above-mentioned testimony No. 1, No. 2 (No. 7), No. 9-1 (Business Registration Certificate), No. 1 ( Teaching Materials for Resident Registration and Seal Imprint), No. 3 (U. 10 to 6 (C. 10), and No. 111-6 (C. 10), and No. 13 (C. 4) are deemed to have been genuine by testimony of the court below, and the above-mentioned No. 9 were not identical with the above-mentioned No. 7 (U. 4). The above-mentioned No. 9 were issued to the plaintiff at the time of the above-mentioned business registration No. 1, and the non-party No. 5's new business registration No. 9 were not identical with the above-mentioned No. 8's new business registration No. 9. The plaintiff's new business registration No. 1 and the non-party No. 5's new business registration No.

The plaintiff is a joint and several surety of the above-mentioned Ba-young. Since the defendant sought full payment of credit debts owed by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, it means a contract under which the employer agrees to compensate for damages suffered by the act of the employee regardless of the acquisition, guarantee or any other name. The relationship between the employer and his employee is not necessarily a typical employment contract, and there is a special agreement contrary to the provisions of the Guarantee of Secrecy with the obligee and the guarantor within a broad meaning of the guarantor. Since the above-mentioned Ba-Ba-gi is a special contract contrary to the provisions of the Guarantee of Secrecy and the disadvantage of the guarantor is null and void, so long as the above-mentioned Ba-gi is working as an external sales store of the plaintiff's cosmetics and becomes subject to the direction and supervision of the plaintiff's above 1, the relationship between the plaintiff and Na-gi is ultimately a relationship between the plaintiff and the employee as stipulated in the Guarantee of Secrecy Act, and the above 1, as well as the above 1,000's joint and several surety agreement after the death of the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the limit of guarantee liability is examined. If Gap's certificate No. 14 (property tax certificate) without dispute over the establishment of the above facts and evidence combines the whole purport of the statement and pleading, the above invoice concluded a contract for the above guarantee of liability with the exception of ownership of a house and a site in the residential area, and there was no particular property for the employment of the cosmetics seller in the above Gunn fever, and thereafter the wife and its age died, and the plaintiff was in the position of the leader and supervisor of the above Gunn fever and neglected to investigate the cause thereof or take any measures without any support despite the increase in the attempted amount of the cosmetics sale price due to negligence in supervising his employees, and there is no other counter-proof, and in view of the motive for the above guarantee of liability, negligence of the employer, duties of the employee, and all other circumstances, it is clear that the above defendant's liability for damages was 00 won, 00 won, 40 won, 00 won, 00 won, 50 won, 100 won, 400 won, 500 won, 500.

Therefore, as to the existence and scope of the above liability from July 2, 1986 to April 23, 1988, as the plaintiff's claim against the early order of the court below, Song Chang-seok is reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the above liability from July 2, 1986 to the following day after the delivery date of the complaint, as the plaintiff's claim is made. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above limit of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed because it is without merit. Since the part against the defendants ordering payment in excess of the above recognition among the original judgment with a different conclusion is unfair, the remaining appeal of the defendants shall be revoked, and Article 39 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed as the remainder of the appeal of each plaintiff and the incidental appeal of Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied.

Judges Lee Han-gu (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-hun