The employer who compensated for damages suffered by a third party due to an employee's illegal activities in an insurance policy of fidelity guarantee can use the right to indemnity against the employee for the remaining damages without being transferred to the insurance money received from the insurance company. However, the criteria for setting the scope of the specific amount of money are different from the original trial and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court presupposes that the plaintiff's damages are the total damages paid to the third party due to the defendant's fault in determining the amount of indemnity for the policyholder of the insured. However, the Supreme Court overlooked that liability insurance is a contract that guarantees legal damages on the insured. In addition, in order to calculate the specific insurance premium in the event of an insurance accident, the liability limit of the fidelity guarantor must be determined after confirming the scope of legal liability for damages of the policyholder. This judgment of the Supreme Court does not correspond to the legal principle of liability for employer's liability under the civil law. In view of the fact that the plaintiff, who is the insured, enjoys unfair excess profits, it also violates the principle of actual expense compensation in the non-life insurance system. Therefore, the judgement of the court of first instance is right which judged the plaintiff's indemnity amount deducting the insurance money already paid from the legal damages.