beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.09.23 2014가단37535

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff's defendant B's attorney is dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 12, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) was in mind while owning the land of the Daejeon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant land”); and (b) Defendant B, around January 12, 2014, operated the gold factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) with the trade name “H” from its neighboring G.

B. As a result of the heavy metal inspection conducted on June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff discovered a large number of lead exceeding the allowable scope, and the number of lead, aluminium, thorium, and heavy metal, etc. are in need of continuous treatment, and as a result of the heavy metal inspection conducted on the instant land, excessive detection of lead, lead, lead, lead, lead, and mercury, etc. was conducted.

C. On February 19, 2015, the Defendant Net B succeeded to C, D, and E, the litigation acceptance of the Defendant Net B’s lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant plant flows out of the instant land from January 12, 2014 to around 17:00, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, as damages for the treatment of heavy metal addiction and for the loss of labor capacity, on the ground that the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a heavy metal addiction (in particular, in excess of the permissible amount of payment) as a result of the diagnosis conducted by the hospital with heavy drums around May 2014 while he/she was in the instant plant in which wastewater flows out of the instant land.

In this regard, Defendant B’s litigants asserted that there was no external outflow of heavy metals discharged in the operation of the factory of this case due to their normal processing, and that the land of this case had been loaded with waste by a third party, not Defendant B.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone regarding the fact that wastewater flows out or flows out into the instant land in the instant plant, i.e., January 12, 2014, is insufficient to recognize the determination, and it is likely to otherwise recognize.