Cases recognizing an employer's liability for fidelity guarantee among its members;

Even if the employee's guarantee contract was made according to the company's policy and precedent, it is not valid against the good faith principle.

Article 1 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act, Articles 2 and 104 of the Civil Act

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Defendant 1 and six others

Busan District Court (69Da3739)

The parts against Defendant 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

As to the plaintiff, the defendant 2 shall pay 1,00,000 won jointly and severally with the defendant 3, and the defendant 1 shall pay 5,00,000 won jointly and severally with the defendant 4, and 5,00,000 won with an annual interest rate from October 18, 1969 to the full payment date.

The plaintiff's objection and the remaining claims against the above defendant are all dismissed.

The litigation costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and 2 shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, etc., and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively, and the costs of appeal against the other defendant, etc. shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 9,702,739 won with a rate of five percent per annum from October 18, 1969 to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).

The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 6,409,642 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from October 18, 1969 to the full payment date.

The costs of lawsuit are to be assessed against the defendant, etc. of the first and second instances and to be declared provisional execution thereof, and the defendant 1 and 2 shall revoke each part of the original judgment against the defendant, etc.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In the past, for Defendants 3 and 4, who were employed by the plaintiff company and were in charge of accounting affairs at the point of (name omitted) of the plaintiff company, the other defendant et al. was each the fidelity guarantor of the plaintiff company. In other words, the defendant 2 et al. against the plaintiff, the defendant 5 et al. on Nov. 30, 1967; the defendant 1 and 6 et al. on Oct. 1, 1963; the defendant 7 et al. on Nov. 30, 1967 for the defendant 4 on Nov. 30, 1967; the defendant 7 et al. agreed to accept them without dispute between the parties; and the defendant 3 et al. on Nov. 30, 1967; the defendant 5-12 and 6-1 through 3-4 et al. on Nov. 1, 1967; and the defendant 7 et al. on Nov. 30, 1967.

(1) 1,333,799 won, collected from them on October 2, 1967

(2) November 1 of the same year, 190 Won 1,789,199

(3) December 29 of the same year 200,828 won.

(4) 642,182 won on April 1, 1968

(5) May 1 of the same year: 662,901 won

(6) July 8 of the same year: 1,426,168 won

(7) 9.2. the above money 813,00 won

(8) November 2, 198 2,256,404 won of the said money.

(9) On January 8, 1969, 921,675 won of the said money

The plaintiff was aware of the embezzlement of 10,046,156 won in total without depositing in the company at each time, and the plaintiff was aware of the embezzlement of her son, etc. and notified the remaining defendant, etc., who are the her fidelity guarantor, about May of the same year after March 1969, and against the above recognition, the above evidence No. 5-1, No. 5-2, No. 6-1, No. 5, No. 8,9, and No. 10 of the above evidence and the testimony of Non-Party No. 2 of the court below did not believe that the her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she

Therefore, if the amount of embezzlement occurred within the guarantee period of each fidelity guarantor due to the above recognition, the above embezzlement was made during the guarantee period of defendant 2, but the above embezzlement was made during the guarantee period of defendant 1 and 6, and the sum of the above (3) through (7) is 6,923,158 won for the guarantee period of defendant 5 and 7 and the above (3) is 6,923,158 won for the guarantee period of defendant 5 and 7. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, defendant 3 and 4 are jointly and severally embezzled by each of the above defendants as the fidelity guarantor, and are jointly and severally liable for compensating the remainder of the above amount embezzled within the guarantee period of each of the above defendants as the fidelity guarantor and the above defendants who are the guarantor of the above defendant. (However, there is a benefit of division between defendant 7 and defendant 1 and 6 who are the fidelity guarantor of defendant 3).

Meanwhile, since the plaintiff received 5,356,603 won as damages for the above embezzlement amount from the defendant 3 and 4 after the above case, and assessed 160,000 won as damages for the defendant 3's movable property and received 5,516,603 won as a total by payment in kind, the plaintiff's voluntary payment of 5,529,553 won shall be the remainder of 4,553 won (However, since the special circumstances on the appropriation of performance do not seem to exist in this case, it shall be appropriated for the obligations embezzled by court appropriation).

However, the above defendant, etc. who has become the guarantor of this case

(1) This case's fidelity guarantee has been made between members in accordance with the company's policy and precedent, and thus it is invalid against the trust and good faith. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that this case's fidelity guarantee was forced by the defendant et al. or was made under an imminent condition, even by the transfer certificate of the defendant et al., and that it is invalid against the trust and good faith. Thus, this argument is without merit.

(2) In addition, the plaintiff, the employer, changed the forest land and duties of the defendant 3 and 4 to the above point accounting division of the plaintiff company (name omitted), and neglected to make large amount of embezzlement over a long time and caused the above defendant, etc. to lose the opportunity to terminate the contract of this case due to the above defendant, etc.'s failure to notify the above defendant, the guarantor, etc., who is the guarantor of this case. However, although the plaintiff, the guarantor of this embezzlement of the defendant 3 and 4, notified the other defendant, etc., who is the guarantor of this fact after being aware of the fact, and notified of this fact, it was the same as the above recognition, and there was no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the defendant 3 and 4 did not know about it in advance, and according to the testimony of the witness non-party 4, the above defendant's fidelity guarantor, etc. had been viewed as the above point accounting and accounting affairs from the past, and even if he did not have any opportunity to change his duties, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's fidelity of this reason.

(3) In addition, Defendant 3 and 4’s embezzlement entirely occurred due to the failure to perform the duty of supervision of the Plaintiff Company, and thus, the fidelity guarantor is not responsible. In full view of the whole purport of the parties’ arguments on the statement of evidence Nos. 7 and the testimony of Nonparty 2 and 3 of the lower trial witness, the Plaintiff Company is a cash receipt with the risk of the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the Plaintiff Company is a general supervisor, who is a commercial supervisor, and the director of the division, the director of the division, the director of the division in charge of the division, and the director of the division, the director of the division, and the director of the division, and the director of the division, who are in charge of the company from time to time, check the reasons for arrears, check the bills or checks received and received by the Plaintiff Company, and prevent the accident without delay. However, even though the above Defendant, etc., it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff Company neglected to perform the duty of supervision over several occasions for a long period of time, or such negligence of the employer can be considered in calculating the amount of compensation.

(4) In addition, Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 asserted that the instant fidelity guarantee was a fidelity guarantor with the retirement allowance among the members, and that the Defendant et al. retired from the Plaintiff company before the instant accident and received the retirement allowance, and that the instant contract was terminated with the retirement allowance or its liability was determined within the scope of the said retirement allowance. However, the Defendant et al. agreed that the instant fidelity guarantee contract was a part of the Plaintiff company, such as the principal guarantor at the time of the instant fidelity guarantee, and that the employees actually provided the same as the principal guarantor at the time of the instant fidelity guarantee, cannot be deemed as a ground for the termination of the said contract as a matter of course due to the retirement of the principal, etc., and since there is no evidence to recognize that the limit of the liability for the said person et al.'s fidelity guarantee was set at the amount of retirement allowance, the above assertion is groundless (However, according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 of this case without dispute, Defendant 7 can be recognized as the fact that the said defendant did not have any liability within the limit of the amount of retirement allowance).

Finally, considering all circumstances such as the health expenses of the guarantor, etc. of this case, the method and result of the tort of this case of the guarantor of this case recognized as above, the degree of compensation for damages, negligence in supervision over the plaintiff who is the employer, ex post facto treatment, the amount of embezzlement of this case during each guarantee period of the guarantor, and the situation where the guarantor's identity is changed, etc., the members of this case must still compensate for damages of this case 4,529,53, the remaining damages of this case 4,500,000, 500 won, 50,000 won, 50,000 won, etc. (the guarantor of this case, etc.) and 9,000 won, 9,000 won, etc., 9,000 won, 7, 60,0000 won, 60,000 won, and 9,000 won, and 35,000,000 won and 9,000 won, etc., 9.

Judges Sap-ho (Presiding Judge) the highest number of judges