The case holding that the Gun and the Gun forestry cooperative shall be liable for damages, in case where the Gun forest cooperative suffered from mass destruction due to the air pest control conducted at the time of the opening of night trees entrusted by the Gun, and the Gun and the Gun forestry cooperative suffered from mass destruction due to the negligence that the Gun and the Gun forest cooperative raised by the Gun that did not know of the Gun due to the fact that the Gun and the Gun forest cooperative did not properly notify the implementation of air pest control, such as the local newspapers and the door-to-door visit originally planned at the time of 4 to 6 days prior to the implementation of pest control measures.

In a case where the Gun Forestry Cooperatives conducted air pest control at the time of the opening of night trees under the entrustment of the Gun (Gun), and the Gun Forest Cooperatives suffered damages in a mass pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary mination, the case holding that the Gun is liable to compensate each of the above Gun air pest control agencies as an agency in charge of preparation for air pest control, and the Gun Forest Association is entrusted with the above Gun as an agency in charge of air pest control, on the ground that the Gun Forest Association shall take into account such factors in determining the time of pest control, and give sufficient time to take measures to prevent damage after giving prior notice to those anticipated to suffer damage after the time of pest control is set, although the Gun Forest Association implemented air pest control measures at the time more than 4 to 6 days prior to the implementation of pest control measures, such as house-to-house visits, which were raised by the Do governor who did not know such facts due to negligence.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Supplementary Do Public-Service Advocates et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Cheong-gun and one other (Attorney Lee Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 18, 2008

1. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 13,766,328 won with 5% interest per annum from September 10, 2008 to October 16, 2008, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 20% is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 76,728,170 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the claim and the amendment of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

The occurrence of liability

A. Facts of recognition

(1) Status of the parties

(A) The Plaintiff had been engaged in the two-year mass farming at the ○○○○○ in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun. Around June 2006, the Plaintiff raised 456 copies of bees around 2006.

(B) At the request of farmers growing night trees, Defendant Cheong-gun was supported by helicopters in the Korea Forest Service and entrusted Defendant Cheong-gun Forestry Cooperatives with the implementation of night tree pest control, thereby executing night tree pest control twice a year.

(2) Ground for the air pollution response

(A) According to the Forest pest control regulations, which are directives of the Korea Forest Service, the forest owner shall take pest control measures, but if the forest owner wants to take air pest control measures in an area where it is difficult to take advantage of the ground, the forest owner may assist the helicopter. The head of the Si/Gun confirms the planned area for pest control measures, provides that the head of the Gun may take charge of preparation for air pest control measures, such as confirmation of the planned area for pest control measures, resident map, installation of a landing place for helicopter, safety measures at the time of helicopter mooring and mooring, installation of a boundary sign of the area for pest control measures

(B) On May 3, 2006, the defendant Cheong-gun entrusted the implementation of the air pest control project to the forestry cooperative of the defendant Cheong-gun on May 3, 2006. According to the public notice, the defendant Cheong-gun published it in a daily newspaper in the defendant Cheong-gun for the sake of residents' guidance, and the forest cooperative of the defendant Cheong-gun made the interested parties visit each other to provide sufficient guidance to prevent damage to other industries. In Eup/Myeon, the defendant Cheong-gun entrusted the promotion of the air pest control project through the village ample-amp and vehicle amp

(C) On May 26, 2006, the defendant Cheong-gun Forestry Cooperatives selected 12 members for the promotion of air pest control in each Eup/Myeon and decided to hold a meeting to conduct an aviation pest control project plan, matters to be reviewed and prepared in advance, regional pest control order, etc. The matters to be resolved include resident guidance including the visit guidance in each unit as seen earlier. The air pest control measures for night trees have been conducted from the south of the area within the jurisdiction of the Cheong-Gun, but in 2006, the plaintiff 12 members for the implementation of air pest control measures were to be conducted from the Northwest area, including the ○○ area in which the plaintiff Y belongs.

(D) As between June 20, 2006 and July 15, 2006, the defendant Cheong-gun made an air pest control implementation during the period from June 25 to July 25, 2006. The defendant Cheong-gun announced that the air pest control implementation was conducted during the period from June 25 to June 28 of the same year with respect to the area of ○○○○ Myeon, and announced that the air pest control implementation was conducted through regional newspapers, such as Gyeongnam-do Residents' Day, Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do, and Gyeongnam-do, and 6.22 of the same year through the Jinju MBC News on June 23 of the same year.

(E) Defendant Mountain-gun instructed the head of each village to know about the implementation of the pest control by means of ample-, ample-, and vehicle hold broadcasting, etc., through the relevant Eup/Myeon office prior to the implementation of the pest control measures. However, Nonparty 1, the head of the village to which the Plaintiff belongs, was aware of the pest control measures only for several persons in the community center, and the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the pest control measures were conducted by ample-, ample-, ample-, ample-, or

(F) On July 6, 2005, air pest control was implemented in ○○-Myeon area. However, as seen earlier, air pest control was implemented on June 27, 2006 by using helicopter in ○-Myeon area (hereinafter “instant air pest control”).

(G) The pesticide used in the air pest control of this case is a pesticide whose principal ingredient is delel, and the precautions against the pesticide are damaged by bees, and thus, it is written that the pesticide should not be used while the flowers is avoided.

(h) Korea’s regressing of night trees are different depending on variety and area, but instead, from June 7 to July 2, 198, the period of regressing is delayed as the area in the north-west area where ○○○○ is located in the U.S. Gun, compared to the area in the South-west area, with a high ground compared to the area in the South-west area, and a low temperature of temperature.

(3) Bobal waste death due to air pest control;

As a result of the instant aviation pest control, 163 copies of 456 copies raised by the Plaintiff was abolished (the Plaintiff asserted that all 456 copies were abolished. However, according to the statement of 1 to 8, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the 163 copies of 200 copies of 200 copies of 419 copies of 200 copies of 419 copies of 200 copies of 200 copies of 200 copies of 200 copies of 200 copies of 163 of 206 were abolished from the content certification sent to the Cheong-Gun Office for the first time on August 28, 2006, and there was no evidence that the 163 copies of 163 copies of 163 copies of 200,000 copies of 20 copies of 20,000 copies of 163 copies of 20,000 copies of 20,000 copies of 2).

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 4 through 20, 23, 27 through 31 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the witness non-party 1, non-party 2, and non-party 3's testimony, the Korean Association of Salary for Agricultural Science and Technology of the Rural Development Administration, the results of each fact inquiry into the Korea Agricultural Science and Technology Institute of Agricultural Development, the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. Recognition of liability

(1) According to the above facts, if the air pest control is conducted when the pest control is conducted at night flowers, burine damage may occur to the pesticide, and if the air pest control is conducted in the north-west area of Busan-gun is relatively late, the damage may be exceeded. As such, in determining the time of air pest control, the above elements should also be considered. Even after setting the time of air pest control, the Defendants notified those who are likely to suffer damage before the time of pest control, and conducted pest control measures after giving them sufficient time to take the pest control measures. In particular, the Plaintiff’s ○○ area was prior to the time of air pest control in comparison with the previous year, and thus, the Plaintiff’s ○○ area should have paid more attention to the Plaintiff so that it could not cause damage because it was not known that the Plaintiff was not aware of the obligation of Defendant 1’s air pest control agency to make a public announcement of the first plan through local newspapers and television before 4 to 6 days, and thus, Defendant 1’s air pest control agency did not notify the Plaintiff of the damage.

(2) On the contrary, the Defendants asserted that there was no causal link between the air pest control and the air pest control of the instant case, as low toxic pesticides, and that there was no causal link between the air pest control and the air pest control of the instant case.

However, in a claim for damages, such as this case, it is difficult or impossible to prove all the theories of causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage in nature, and thus, the victim's request for strict scientific certification as to the existence of factual causal relationship may result in the refusal of judicial relief. Thus, if there is a harmful cause substance, and if the cause substance reaches the damaged object and the damage was caused by the arrival of the damaged object, it is in accord with the concept of equity.

However, as seen earlier, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff cream was suffering from cryptive damage only by Nonparty 4’s testimony alone. As seen in the above facts, the Plaintiff was raising cryp breeding normally on the ○○○ side, which is the land subject to air pest control in the instant case. However, as long as it was found after the Defendants’ implementation of air pest control, the causal link between the air pest control in the instant case and the Plaintiff cump death is proven to be acceptable.

C. Limitation on liability

However, according to the above facts, even though the Defendants had been implementing the air pest control for a long time, there has been no particular damage, and the Defendants decided to implement air pest control from the northwest-gun area by civil petition of the night tree farmers in the northwest-gun area, and made efforts to prevent damage, such as holding a meeting to reduce damage caused by air pest control, such as publishing through newspapers and TV, and establishing and implementing a plan, and the Plaintiff has also been conducting air pest control at a similar time each year. Therefore, it is recognized that the Defendants could prepare for air pest control by checking the scheduled timing of air pest control from the government offices and the neighboring double-wing business entities, but it is not appropriate to limit the amount of damage to 60% of the total amount of damage to be compensated by the Defendants under the principle of fairness.

2. Scope of damages.

A. Whether to recognize each damage

(1) Whether the amount of damages is recognized as a result of the alteration pulmonary death

As seen above, there was a death of the Plaintiff due to an agrochemical spreaded by the Defendants during the air pest control period. Barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are liable for compensating for the damages equivalent to the market price of 163 copies, respectively.

(2) Whether to recognize the amount of damages caused by the unafluence of the salary group

The plaintiff asserts that he suffered 5 million won per group of 100,000 won as a result of air pest control at the time when he must increase his salary class, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff suffered the above losses only by the descriptions of Gap evidence 6-1 through 8, 11-1 through 4, 19, 32-1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff suffered the above losses, and since there is no other evidence to prove that this part of the damage is not acceptable.

(3) Whether damages can be recognized due to attempted alteration of punishment

The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff suffered losses of KRW 13,031,250 per kilogramus 1 kilogramus as it was not harvested equivalent to 2,085 kilograms due to the pulmonary death of bees. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff suffered such losses only on the basis of the entries of evidence Nos. 6-1 through 8, 11-1 through 4, 19-19 and the fact-finding with respect to the Koreayang Association, an incorporated association, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. Calculation of damages

(1) The amount of damages of the waste bed

According to the evidence No. 3 and the fact-finding on the Korea Yangyang Association, the market price of one unit (wing) of the altered punishment in 2006 is recognized as 140,760, and thus, the amount of damages of the closed be 22,943,880 won (i.e., 140,760 won x 163).

(2) Limitation of liability

As seen in paragraph (1)(c) above, the Defendants’ liabilities are limited to 60% of the total amount, so the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendants is KRW 13,766,328 (=22,943,880 x 60%).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to each plaintiff 13,766,328 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from September 10, 2008, which is the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case sought by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation, until October 16, 2008, which is the date of the decision of this case, and which is the date of the decision of this case, from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit

Judges Kim Jong-soo