In case of deprivation of the opportunity to terminate the contract by failing to notify the fidelity guarantor of the notification prescribed in Article 4 of the Act on the Guarantee of Personal Identity, it shall be interpreted that the fidelity guarantor's liability to compensate is denied.

If it can be deemed that the fidelity guarantor has deprived of his opportunity to terminate the contract because he did not notify the fidelity guarantor under this article, it is denied that the fidelity guarantor is liable for compensation.

Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

An agricultural cooperative in the smuggling-gun-gun

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court Decision 69Na532 delivered on November 26, 1970

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The Defendants’ Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Article 4 of the Act on the Guarantee of Fidelity provides that (1) an employee may cause the fidelity guarantor's liability due to the reason that the employee is unfit or unfaithd in the course of his duties, and (2) that the employee shall increase the responsibility of the fidelity guarantor or notify the fidelity guarantor without delay in the event that the employee is difficult to supervise his duties or land due to the change of his duties or land, and Article 5 of the same Act provides that the fidelity guarantor may terminate the contract upon receipt of the notification under Article 4. Therefore, the relationship between the fidelity guarantor and the employee may be deemed to have been deprived of the opportunity to terminate the contract due to the failure to notify the fidelity guarantor even though there are special circumstances that the fidelity guarantor would have terminated the contract if he was notified under Article 4 of the Act on the Guarantee of Fidelity.

According to the facts established by the court below in this case, the non-party was employed as a temporary employee of the plaintiff association as of May 11, 1964, and was promoted to a clerk on April 1, 1966, and was transferred to a single mountainous district of the plaintiff association from April 6, 1966 to February 7, 1967, and he embezzled KRW 77,00 of the public funds of the plaintiff association during his work at this place. Despite such fact, the plaintiff association had the non-party work as a staff member of the Seoyang-gun temporary agency in which one million won or more per day is traded from February 8, 1967. Since the plaintiff did not notify the non-party of his work and change of forest land as his fidelity guarantor, the non-party association did not err in the misapprehension of the law of 150,000 won for the plaintiff association's non-compliance with the above defendant's duty to notify the above 300,500,000 won for the plaintiff association's non-compliance with the above obligation.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Dong-dong et al. (Presiding Justice)