Relationship between Volunteer Fire Brigade and State

Since a volunteer fire brigade is not an agency of the State, nor an employee, in case where its members inflict damage on another person due to an illegal act in the course of performing fire prevention or flood control and rescue duties incidental thereto, it cannot be said that the State is liable to compensate for such damage.

Article 40 of the Fire Services Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

6Da808 decided Jun. 28, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 1305 decided Jun. 28, 196; Supreme Court Decision 14 ②115 decided Jun. 28, 196; Decision Decision Article 63(2)55 of the Fire Services Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Korea

Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District Court (65Ga351, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 66Na1499 Delivered on October 4, 1966

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' above claims are dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay 2,023,693 won to the plaintiff 1, 50,00 won to the plaintiff 2, and 30,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 20,000 won to the plaintiff 4,5,6, and7 respectively, and 20,000 won per annum from the day after the copy of this case was served to the completion of this case.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution

The defendant (Appellant) is seeking a judgment to the same effect as the order.

(1) According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Statement), 4 (Voluntary Statement), 5 (No. 6 (Evidence Protocol), 7 (Examination of Suspect), and 8 ( Indictment) without dispute over the establishment of the fire brigade, the injury suffered by the plaintiff No. 1, as alleged by the plaintiffs, is the members of the No. 1 volunteer fire brigade, and the non-party No. 1, who was in charge of the operation of the fire engine No. 2, who was in charge of the fire brigade No. 2, belonging to the fire brigade, was ordered to move to the above fire engine on August 26, 1964, and 10 volunteer No. 1, including the plaintiff No. 1, who was under the command of the fire extinguishing operation agreement at the second training yard No. 2, the second training center located in the Si-Eup in Seo-gu, Seosan-do, and the second training center at the speed of 30 days per hour during 16:05, 1605, 400 mar fire engines.

(2) The plaintiffs asserted that the damage of the above recognition suffered by the plaintiff 1, who is a public official, was caused by negligence while performing the state's duties, and even if not, since the non-party 1 is the defendant's employee, the plaintiff 1 is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for the damage suffered by the plaintiff 1. However, the volunteer fire brigade is not a state's agency, and since it is not an employee, it is not an employee, and in the course of fire prevention or flood prevention and rescue incidental thereto, the plaintiff 1 suffered damage due to tort, the state's responsibility for compensating for the damage. The damage of the plaintiffs' assertion suffered by the plaintiff 1 is the same as recognized in the former part (1) that the non-party 1, who is the member of the Seosan-gu Volunteer Fire Brigade, suffered from negligence in the course of performing fire prevention duties. Therefore, it cannot be said that the state's defendant is liable for compensating for the damage

(3) Thus, since the plaintiffs' claims in the principal lawsuit are without merit without any further judgment, they are all dismissed. Since the original judgment has accepted part of the plaintiffs' above claims with different conclusions, according to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part against the defendant in the original judgment against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to that part are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of total litigation costs.

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)