Cases where there is no reason to notify the fidelity guarantor;

Where a guarantor of a temporary employment cause has been transferred from the finance division of the Plaintiff to the construction division due to a change in his/her duties, the change in his/her duties is merely a change in the duty expected at the time of the fidelity Guarantee, and it cannot be deemed a significant change in the duty to the extent that the guarantor terminates the fidelity Guarantee, and it does not constitute a change in the duty to the extent that the guarantor increases his/her responsibility or makes it difficult to supervise the guarantor. Therefore, the guarantor's failure to notify the change in his/her duties cannot be deemed an exemption from the duty

Article 4 of the Fidelity Guarantee Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293Hun-Ba59 delivered on October 26, 1961 (Supreme Court Decision 6812 delivered on November 26, 1961; Supreme Court Decision 9Do60 delivered on September 60, 196; and Article 4 (1)652 of the Guarantee of Secrecy Act

Chang-si

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court of First Instance (65No936) Gyeong-gu Branch Court of the District Court

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below is modified as follows.

Defendant, etc. shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 218,067.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc.

First, as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1:

Defendant 1’s statement on February 25, 1963 and records of Defendant 1’s embezzlement case (an examination protocol of Nonparty 1, an indictment, etc.) for five years from the same date to February 24, 1968 that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 signed a contract for the guarantee of identity with Nonparty 1 to compensate the Plaintiff jointly and severally, as the parties do not dispute the establishment of the contract, each of the statement Nos. 2, 3 (written evidence of Nonparty 2, 6 (written judgment) and evidence Nos. 4-1 through 4 (definite Register) and evidence Nos. 67 and 125 (definite), which were recorded on the testimony of the court below and Nonparty 2, were recorded on the record of Nonparty 1’s occupational embezzlement case (an examination protocol of Nonparty 1, an indictment, etc.) for which Nonparty 1 had been recorded on the record of Nonparty 1’s temporary employment and evidence No. 1 to 368, May 16, 1968.

However, at the time of the defendant's guarantee of non-party 1's identity, the non-party 1 was the temporary employee of the general account budget as the market user fee collection source. However, in order to appoint non-party 1 as the temporary employee of the waterworks special account budget, the above general account temporary employee should be exempted. After the non-party 1 was appointed as the collection source of the water use fee, the above defendant did not have any other obligation again. Thus, the defendant is not liable for damages. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the non-party 1 was dismissed from the temporary employee of the plaintiff at the time of the change of his duties as the collection source of the water use fee, and the non-party 1 was appointed as the temporary employee of the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff on January 31, 1963 and worked for the simultaneous finance division and work for the same year, and the change of the above duties is expected at the time of the above change of duties. Thus, the above obligation guarantee defense can not be viewed as invalid.

In addition, when there is a change in the status of the guarantor as above, the defendant 1 must notify the defendant, who is the guarantor, and the defendant has not been obliged to compensate for the above loss. However, it cannot be said that the defendant's responsibility, which is the guarantor, is increased or supervision is difficult due to the change in the duties of the non-party 1, the above defendant's defense is groundless.

Defendant 1 and the director of the city and the chief of the village, etc., at the location of supervising Nonparty 1 on behalf of the Plaintiff, caused Nonparty 1 to commit the above criminal acts by intention or gross negligence. Thus, the responsibility of the Plaintiff is to be borne by the Plaintiff himself. Since Defendant 1 stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the testimony of Nonparty 2, in full view of the above witness’s testimony, when the water user fails to pay the water fee for more than 2 months, the suspension of water supply is to be imposed. Although Nonparty 1’s embezzlement incident continues over a long-term period as above, the above suspension of water supply is not imposed and the reasons for the failure to investigate is found even if the embezzlement incident occurred on December 1965, it can be acknowledged that it was found that the facts were found at the time of the Plaintiff’s employee due to the negligence on the part of Nonparty 1, who is an employee, due to his duty of care in supervision, and thus, it cannot be considered that Defendant 1 is not liable for damages or damages as follows.

Therefore, in relation to the amount of damages to be compensated by Defendant 1, and the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant 1 agreed on February 20, 1965 to accept the amount of embezzlement of Nonparty 1 and to pay the amount of compensation to the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 was immediately notified of the reason to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff was aware of the embezzlement incident. In light of these circumstances and the Plaintiff’s negligence in supervising the above recognition and its degree, the amount of damages to be compensated by Defendant 1 out of the damages of the above recognition should be deemed as KRW 70,00,00.

As to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2:

As Defendant 2 also claimed on February 25, 1963 that Nonparty 1, while in office at the time of the Plaintiff, sought compensation for all damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s intentional or negligent act in performing his duties. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against Nonparty 1 on February 25, 1963 is without merit, since Nonparty 2’s testimony of Nonparty 3 on this point is not trustable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the part against the Defendant in the evidence No. 1 of the lower judgment on this point, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the Defendant by Nonparty 2 on the ground that Nonparty 1 had offered the remainder of the judgment on this point.

The plaintiff asserted that on February 20, 1965, defendant 2 agreed to accept the above embezzlement of the non-party 1 and compensate the plaintiff for the above damage, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 shall be dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the court below shall be dismissed for the same purport as the judgment of the court below is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff under Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the payment of the costs of lawsuit shall be made as per the disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)