1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives of Ulsandong-gu A apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and the defendant was a person who served as the head of the office of management of the apartment of this case.

B. On March 24, 2011, the police arrested the Defendant of the forest fire-prevention crime in Ulsan-gu, the Ulsan Metropolitan City, following a meeting of the advisory committee and the corrective coordination committee, including attorneys-at-law, and the total amount of the arrest reward on July 17, 2012, and KRW 200 million, considering the degree of contribution to arrest, etc., the police paid the Defendant a monetary reward of KRW 30 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 100 million ( KRW 70 million: the apartment resident, KRW 30 million, and KRW 50 million: the apartment management office E), KRW 2 million in the F apartment, and KRW 2 million in the G apartment (hereinafter “instant monetary reward”). At that time, the police paid the Defendant a monetary reward of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant monetary reward”).

C. The Ulsan Metropolitan City paid the instant monetary reward to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant contributed to arresting the offender by cooperatinging the Defendant to allow the Defendant to peruse CCTV images installed in the instant apartment complex to the police and by providing an occupant management card of the instant apartment complex to verify the identity of the offender.

[Reasons for Recognition] The absence of dispute, the result of inquiry into the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor by the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) CCTV video or occupant management card of the apartment of this case was kept and managed in the position of the defendant as the head of the management office of the apartment of this case. Thus, the defendant's act of providing it to the police for the arrest cooperation of criminals is included in the scope of the duties of the head of the management office of the apartment of this case. Thus, the monetary reward of this case must be attributed to the apartment of this case, not the defendant. 2) Further, the decision to pay the monetary reward of this case to Ulsan Metropolitan City was based on the abolished Act (Rules on Forest Fire Prevention and Fire Extinguishment, etc.) and Article 48 subparagraph 3