The nature of a volunteer fire brigade established under Article 63 of the Fire Services Act;

In accordance with the provision of Article 63 of the Fire Services Act, a volunteer fire brigade established by a Si/Eup/Myeon to assist the fire-fighting duties of the chief of a fire station cannot be deemed as a state agency, and it cannot be said that it is a subordinate institution to a Si/Eup/Myeon that has been established.

Articles 63 and 67 of the Fire Services Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Yang-gun, Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2042 delivered on February 17, 1978

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the volunteer fire brigade's expenses cannot be regarded as a state agency, and it cannot be regarded as a subordinate agency to the Si/Eup/Myeon which has established the volunteer fire brigade in order to assist the fire-fighting duties of the chief of the fire station pursuant to Article 63 of the Fire Services Act, and the expenses of the volunteer fire brigade in Article 67 of the same Act shall be the financial resources for the fire-fighting facility tax under Article 239 of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the volunteer fire brigade cannot be regarded as a subordinate agency to the Si/Eup/Myeon which has established it, and therefore, it is obvious that the defendant cannot be regarded as a person who operates the vehicle in this case or a person who operates it for his own sake, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Act, such as the theory of the lawsuit.

We cannot accept the argument that is based on the independent opinion because it does not seem to be an argument.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)