2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The average 0.021 pm fine dust (NO2) annual average of 0.021 p.m. (24 hours per 24 hours per 24 hours, 20 g. 20 g. per 20 g.

2. The defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 30 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. As stated in Paragraph 1 of this Article, the judgment and the defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 10 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

The court's explanation on the instant case is the same as the statement on the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written or added, and thus, it shall accept it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the fourth 20th 20th 20th 1st 20th 1st 20th 1st 20th 20th 4th 1st 1st 20th 1st 20th 1st 20th 1st 20th 1st 20th 1st 3th 1st 3th 1st 1st 202

0 Prior to the result of the examination of the principal in Part 5, the "court of the first instance" shall be added.

0 Following the “Prohibition of Discharge” of Part 18 No. 7, the part of “maintenance of atmosphere condition” is added to the “Prohibition of Discharge” that does not exceed the point stated in the claims.

In Chapter 25, Item 6, "whether or not the Defendants' tort liability is recognized" was added to the following acts: "At first, the causal relationship common to determine whether or not the Defendants are liable, Defendant Republic of Korea, public officials of Seoul Government, and Defendant Company's intentional or negligent violation of law, Defendant Company's intentional or negligent violation, and Defendant Company's intentional or negligent violation, are examined in turn," and "the lawsuit claiming damages" in Chapter 12, and "the fact that the Defendant Company has included unfortunate ingredients in gas emitted from the automobiles manufactured and sold by the Defendant Company, and thus, the Defendant Company also recognized it, if each of the diseases of this case occurred or worsens, the lawsuit of this case also constitutes a lawsuit claiming damages due to pollution)."

0 No. 45, No. 14 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. shall be applied by cutting the "le" into "agras".

0 Nos. 46, 46, and 13 shall be applied by cutting "use" into "use".

0 No. 47 No. 3 "s. ingredients" shall be added to "s. ingredients expenses".

0 Nos. 48, 19, 61, and 18 shall be applied to the witness of the first instance trial.

0 Nos. 63, 63 (No. 64) provides that the following shall apply from 11 to 63.

Even according to Non-party 3's testimony, the non-party 3 presumed that the increase in the rate of disease was caused by the diesel engine emission substance or the substance emitted from the vehicle without an analysis of the degree of contribution by source of air pollutants. The non-party 3's own examination of other factors that can affect other factors should be premised in order to be considered as the cause of the outbreak or aggravation of corrosion, etc. is due to the traffic air pollution factors. In the above study, it was pointed out that the concentration of residential air pollution base in the above study was not related to the new astronomical symptoms or diagnosis, and there was no significant relation with the new astronomical risks, and the new astronomical risks were not related to the new astronomical symptoms or diagnosis, and the above study was that the children residing within 75 meters from the main roadside, but the plaintiffs' own own inspection was made by affixing their dwelling places or the distance between the workplace and the main roads, but it was difficult to directly apply the above results."

0 No. 64 is added to the "court of the first instance" prior to the "written examination result" in Part 64.

0 Nos. 66, 16, and 16, “There is no reason to believe that the Defendant intentionally or negligently committed an illegal act.”

Ⅱ. Additional Parts

Part 65, Part 7, the following judgments shall be added:

2. Whether the intent or negligence of Defendant Republic of Korea and Seoul Government public officials violates statutes;

In general, when the State or local governments (hereinafter referred to as the “State, etc.”) exercise their authority, it must prevent damage to the people, take into account the safety of the people, and even if a public official belonging to the State, etc. wholly or incidentally causes damage to the people in violation of the official duties prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes to protect the safety and interests of the people, the State, etc. shall be liable to compensate to the extent that proximate causal relation is recognized if the public official breached his/her duties to protect the safety and interests of the people. However, even if a public official was specifically obligated pursuant to the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, regardless of the interests of the people, if it is aimed at maintaining the internal order of an administrative agency, or if it is aimed at promoting the overall public interest, not directly for the interests of the people, but for the interests of the people, the State, etc. is not liable to compensate for damage to the people in violation of its duties

However, considering the purport, purpose, and details of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and the Special Act on the Improvement of Air Quality in the Seoul Metropolitan Area and the nature of the obligations borne by the State, etc. under the laws and regulations, the provisions imposing obligations to maintain a atmosphere according to certain standards on the State, etc. shall not be deemed to have violated the laws and regulations for the protection of individual safety and interests of the public by providing a pleasant atmospheric environment to the public, but it is difficult to view that it is a provision for the protection of the general public’s health and to promote the overall

3. Whether the defendant company's intentional or negligent act was committed

However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant Company manufactured and sold a motor vehicle in violation of the regulatory standards of exhaust gas as prescribed by laws and regulations, and even if the cause of air pollution in Seoul was caused by the concentration and concentration of the motor vehicle on the road in high density and mass exhaust gas from the motor vehicle, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant Company could have predicted the circumstance that the motor vehicle's concentration and concentration in Seoul Special Metropolitan City area deviates from the area controlled by the Defendant Company, and thus, it would be contaminated by the motor vehicle's exhaust gas containing harmful substances in the atmosphere by its manufacturer and sale of the motor vehicle. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not have specific assertion that the Defendant Company could avoid the result of air pollution caused by the vehicle's emission in the present level of science and technology. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the Defendant Company committed any unlawful act.

III. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for damages against the non-party 1 and 2, the joint management of the rehabilitation company, which is the joint management of the two-party automobile company, among the lawsuit of this case, among the lawsuit of this case, shall be dismissed, and the remaining claims and claims against the above defendant 2 shall be dismissed since all of the claims against the above defendant 2 and the remaining claims against the defendants shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)