The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could not be exempted from such liability solely on the ground that the Defendant committed soil contamination by sub-to each of the instant land, and thus, the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant land, is liable for compensating for damages therefrom and for purifying contaminated soil, and the Defendant was promised not to file any civil petition or objection with C and D, the former owner of each of the instant land.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the part of the reasoning of the lower judgment that the Defendant was responsible for the Plaintiff as a person responsible for purification determined by the Soil Environment Conservation Act is erroneous, but the conclusion that recognized the damage compensation and purification liability against the Plaintiff pursuant to the Soil Environment Conservation

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal nature of the duty of purification under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles on persons responsible for purification under the Soil Environment Conservation Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant’s Intervenor and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.