손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Confirmation of the absence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to implement the soil purification measure added at the trial.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 16, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership by receiving a decision to permit the sale of the instant building with respect to the land B (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building on the land (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Daegu-gun District District Court B (Seoul District Court Seo-Support E) for the auction procedure for real estate rent (hereinafter “Seoul District Court Seo-gu District Court”). On April 6, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the proceeds of sale of KRW 237,781,000 on April 6, 2010.
B. On July 2009, C leased the instant land and buildings from F, and confirmed that the level of soil contamination of the instant land does not exceed the soil contamination level by requesting an institution specialized in the inspection of soil contamination levels to conduct an inspection of soil contamination level on July 28, 2009. Since that time, C has been operating a gas station with the trade name “D gas station” at the same place. On April 6, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land and buildings, and the Plaintiff continued to operate the gas station by leasing the instant land and buildings from the Plaintiff, and was terminated on March 2011.
C. On March 201, the Plaintiff requested the Korea Environment Waterworks Institute to conduct an inspection of soil contamination levels (hereinafter “the first soil contamination level inspection”) in order to lease the instant land and buildings again for the use of oil stations. As a result of the inspection, on March 23, 201, the gross hydrocarbon (TPH) as prescribed by the Soil Environment Conservation Act from the instant land exceeds 2,000g/km, which is a soil contamination level, 2,464mg/km.
On April 4, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition to C to the effect that “The detailed soil survey is conducted not later than July 3, 2011 and the completion report is shipped.”
Accordingly, on May 31, 201, the Plaintiff requested the Environmental Health Technology Research Institute, a foundation, to conduct a detailed soil survey, and as a result, on the instant land on May 31, 201, the result of the inspection, the petroleum total hydrocarbon (TPH) as prescribed by the Soil Environment Conservation Act was detected in excess of 2,000g/km, which is the risk of soil contamination, in excess of 5,597mg/km, and in addition, benluene, Toluene, and cene.