2012Na4367 Damages

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

[Judgment of the court below]

1. S.C.; and

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

J Law Firm J

2. Korea;

3. Nice Co., Ltd.;

Law Firm K, Attorney Park Jae-soo

Busan District Court Decision 2010Gahap23633 Decided May 10, 2012

August 13, 2013

September 24, 2013

1. Plaintiffs A, C, and D

A. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs A, C, and D and appeals filed by Defendants C and C are dismissed. (b) The costs of appeal arising between Plaintiffs A, C, and D and Defendants C and U.S. Co., Ltd are borne by each party, and the costs of appeal arising between the said Plaintiffs and the Defendant Republic of Korea and Niceice Co., Ltd are borne by the said Plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiff B

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the order of additional payment against the plaintiff B against the United Nations E.S. corporation shall be revoked.

Defendant U.S. Co., Ltd. pays to Plaintiff B 4,143,442 won with 5% interest per annum from January 14, 2011 to September 24, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The remainder of the appeal against the plaintiff Lee Jong-il Co., Ltd., and the appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea and Nativeice Co., Ltd. and the appeal against the above plaintiff Lee Il-il is dismissed in entirety.

C. The 10 minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit between the Plaintiff B and the Defendant U.S. Co., Ltd. are 10 minutes, and the remaining 7 minutes are borne by the Plaintiff, U.S. Co., Ltd., and the costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff B and the Defendant Republic of Korea and N. S. Co., Ltd.

D. The part ordering the payment of money among the above paragraph (a) above may be provisionally executed.

3. Plaintiffs E, F, and G

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant E, F, and G, which exceeds the following payment order, shall be revoked, and all of the claims against Plaintiff E, F, and G pertaining to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Defendant U.S. Co., Ltd. pays to Plaintiff E 39,564,605 won, Plaintiff F and G 24,709,737 won, respectively, and 5% per annum from January 14, 2011 to September 24, 2013, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. All of the appeals by Plaintiffs E, F, and G and the remaining appeals by Defendants J.S. Co., Ltd. against the above Plaintiffs are dismissed.

C. Two minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs E, F, G and the defendant TNE Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and the remaining one shall be borne by the defendant TNE Co., Ltd., and the costs of the appeal between the plaintiffs E, F, G and the defendant Republic of Korea and NNE Co., Ltd shall be borne by the above plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs A 85,961,749 won, 115,898,256 won, 110,000,000 won to the plaintiff C, 60,000 won to the plaintiff D, 194,585,556 won, 196 won to the plaintiff E, 38,571,428 won, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs falling under the part of the order to pay is revoked. The defendants pay to each plaintiff Eul 40,937,645 won, 46,940,104 won to the plaintiff Eul, 71,000,000 won to the plaintiff Eul, 39,000,000 won to the plaintiff Eul, 137,073,077 won to the plaintiff Eul, 1,563,109 won to the plaintiff Eul, and 1,563,109 won to each of the above amounts, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant SP Co., Ltd.: The part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant SP Co., Ltd. shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or Gap 1 to 12 evidence (if any)

Each number included, hereinafter the same shall apply), Ga 1 and 2, Ga 1 and 2, and Ga 1 and 2 in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of a physical examination commissioned by the court of first instance to the head of the Busan White Hospital affiliated with the University of the first instance, and contrary thereto, Eul 10 are not believed to have been written and there is no other counter-proof.

A. The relationship between the parties

(1) On October 17, 1969, the defendant T.S. Co., Ltd. newly built a factory producing asbestos products on the 525th ground of the Dongdong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "O.S factory of this case") around October 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the asbestos factory of this case"), which was established as the Japanese chemical industry company on February 23, 197 after being converted into the Japanese chemical industry company on February 29, 199, and then changed to the current trade name on December 29, 199 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant T.S"). On October 1969, the defendant T.S. newly built a factory producing asbestos products (hereinafter referred to as "the asbestos factory of this case") at the factory of this case from December 12, 1969 to March 26, 199; manufactured asbestos products such as asbestos death, asbestos ropes, asbestos tapes, asbestos tape, asbestos street, etc.; manufactured asbestos products to the factory of this case after the date of this case.

(2) On April 9, 1896, Defendant Nice Co., Ltd. was established as Japan Sstoves Co., Ltd. on and around 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Nice”) and produced asbestos products in the Republic of Korea on June 2, 1971, by establishing a Japanese largest scale of asbestos product production company (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Nice”) in collaboration with Defendant Stoves Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Japan”) in Korea.

(3) Defendant No. 1 had asbestos products manufactured through the transfer of asbestos production technology, such as asbestos capture from Defendant Nice to Defendant Nice, and on October 10, 1985 after the date on which the first date was changed from October 1981 to Sex Co., Ltd., Defendant No. 1 was merged into UNS. On October 10, 1985. (4) Plaintiff A worked at the Cheong and0 asbestos department of the instant asbestos plant from February 1, 1971 to June 1975. Plaintiff B worked at the Cheong and0 asbestos department of the instant asbestos processing plant from December 12, 1976 to March 3, 1984.

(5) From October 19, 1989 to May 10, 1991, the deceased L worked in the asbestos production facilities of Defendant 1, including the asbestos plant of this case. Plaintiff C is the husband of the deceased L, and Plaintiff D is the child of the deceased L.

(6) From July 1979 to May 1989, the deceased M resided in the company while working as the field function and management staff at the asbestos plant of this case. The plaintiff E is the deceased M's wife, plaintiff F, and G. The deceased M's children.

B. Working environment, etc. of the asbestos plant of this case

(1) Until now, asbestos removal factories in Korea, most of 14, small and medium-sized businesses with less than 30 workers, and it is known that 1 business places in Busan, 9, 2, Ulsan, and 1 business places in the Chungcheong north are located in 9, Ulsan, and 1 business places in the Chungcheong north. Of which, the number of workers and production are the asbestos factories in this case operated by Defendant S.

(2) From December 1969 to March 26, 1990 in the asbestos plant of this case, Defendant U.S. produced asbestos products. Among them, it is confirmed that at least 1,515 workers worked in the asbestos plant of this case were at least 1,515 workers.

(3) Prior to around 1976, Defendant T.S. provided workers with string strings without a stringer, and around 1976, it did not timely replace the stringer in charge of the string function. When asbestos companies were cut off, Defendant T.S. did not provide a stringer to workers in charge of the duties that should be cut off. Only provided general working clothes made in general, not the working corridor and dust-proof work clothes, but only provided general working clothes made in general, not the working corridor and dust-proof work clothes at the workplace, and asbestos dust was scattered at all times at the workplace due to the failure to properly install or operate the dust-proof and dust-proof facilities at the workplace.

(4) In addition, Defendant No.S had conducted the safety education to the employees to wear dust-proof strings and scarfs by making use of the time, such as the Alins, but did not conduct specific safety education regarding the disease or method of prevention, etc. caused by asbestos exposure.

(c) Diseases caused by asbestos and asbestos;

(1) In general, asbestos generally refers to the term “induculation of fiber infection” in its own connection. Asbestos is a chemical compound in the fiber shape, in which the diameter is 0.02 to 0.03§¯, and can be easily cut up as a path and a strong fiber, and can be spreaded in a ceiling, and it is often used in a place in need of combustibility, fireproofity, and chemical activation due to heat, combustibility, and combustibility. Although asbestos is diverse and the number of asbestos exceeds 30, generally, three luculation asbestos and each island, the system of lucularine, are commercial importance, and asbestos produced worldwide accounts for at least 95% of asbestos.

(2) White asbestos may be cut off with a lush, sl, and solid, but even if the lush shape of each island remains in solid shape. For this reason, lux asbestos, such as lux asbestos, lux asbestos, amosite asbestos, and luxite, is low at the lux, and even if the luxial environment of a large cell remains for a long time, it may cause damage to luxary cells. However, it is harmful to the degree of difference, and all kinds of asbestos, including lux asbestos, are harmful to the upper part of the lux.

(3) Asbestos may cause a fatal disease, such as waste cancer, asbestosis, and heavy spam, even if there is no later exposure once again, even if there is no later exposure. A representative disease caused by asbestos is a kind of lung cancer of asbestosis, waste cancer, and cuotum cancer. Otherwise, asbestos is likely to cause an infectious disease, such as pulmonary cancer, waste cancer, pulmonary cancer, expansion of engine site, waste collection, waste collection, pulmonary cancer, and workplace cancer. In addition, some researchers regard asbestos as a non-specific substance, such as pulmonary cancer, pulmonary cancer, extracting cancer, pulmonary cancer, pulmonary cancer, pulmonary cancer, pulmonary cancer, pulmonary cancer, pulmonary cancer, etc., and thus, it is deemed that some researchers have caused pulmonary diseases, such as pulmonary disease.

(4) 석면폐증(Asbestosis)은 석면을 취급한 적이 있는 환자나 그 가족 또는 석면을 취급하는 작업장 부근의 주민 등에게서 발생할 수 있는 미만성, 간질성 폐질환으로, 공기 중에 노출된 다량의 석면 섬유가 폐포 내에 침착되어 생기는 폐선유증(肺線維症)을 가리키며, 석면 분진과 관련된 대표적인 질환이다. 석면폐증은 석면의 성상 외에도 피폭된 양과 기간, 그리고 작업장의 환경에 따라서 발생율이 달라지는데, 석면을 채굴하는 광부보다는 석면을 가공하고 섬유화시키는 과정에 종사하는 사람에게서 더 많이 관찰된다. 석면폐증의 감별진단으로는 폐 섬유화를 유발하는 모든 질환을 고려하여야 하고, 심한 석면폐증에서는 호흡부전, 폐성심 등이 나타날 수도 있다.

(5) A malicious fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, etc., which is covered by the surface of the heart, such as the brush, the heart body, etc. covered by the heart, and 80-90% of the development cause of the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluorals, etc., were caused by asbestos to prevent the embage or cruoring of asbestos fibers, and the asbestos fibers from 8 months to 40 years after the discovery as a very fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, etc., was known to be known to be the first exposure to asbestos and the diving period between the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor.

Although the malutism may occur by any cause other than asbestos (radiation, virus, etc.), the possibility is only 10 to 20%, due to such exceptional possibility, the radiation and salutism (SV40) virus may be included. However, in the case of radiation, there are cases where serious salute occurs on the part where the radiation was investigated from among those who received radiation treatment in the process of treating salpha cancer, and in particular, it cannot be the cause for general public who do not receive any investigation into radiation in the inside, and in the case of salutia (SV40), it is difficult to see that the outbreak of the malute species by the above virus itself is a realistic cause for the occurrence of the malute type in the situation where there is a doubt in the academic community. Ultimately, the cause of the malute type to general people who do not receive any special radiation treatment is the only cause for exposure to asbestos, and there is no other realistic cause for exposure to asbestos in the process.

(6) If asbestos is exposed once, the disease continues to progress without being exposed thereafter (the locking machine is ordinarily about 5 to 30 years). Thus, the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency shall wear appropriate internal chemical protection devices and safety guards to prevent damage caused by asbestos exposure. The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency shall wear respiratory protective devices (the breast string, etc. with a high-efficiency 9.97% or more of the said agency’s ability), shall prevent dust occurrence, and shall encourage the operation of ventilation devices at the time of asbestos treatment. In addition, the foregoing Corporation recommends manufacturing or handling asbestos to obtain and utilize a health management pocketbook when it is engaged in the business of manufacturing or handling it.

(d) Asbestos hazards recognition and asbestos-related regulations;

(1) The confirmation of the causal link between the abnormal waste and asbestos exposure is the early 1930s, and the relationship between asbestos and the lung cancer and the malutronum was revealed in the 1950s and the 1960s, and medical opinions on the risk of asbestos were established in the 1950s and 1960s.

(2) Germany recognized the waste cancer caused by asbestos in 1943 as an occupational disease caused by asbestos, and accordingly, started to compensate the asbestos-exploit workers. In the case of the United States, the increase in product liability lawsuits against asbestos-exploiters in the 1970s, a lot of lawsuits have been filed in the 1980s, and asbestos has been gradually regulated since 1989, and the North Europe started to prohibit the use of asbestos by law in the 1980s.

(3) The International Cancer Research Institute, an affiliated body of the International Health Organization (WHO), prepared a report on the exposure of asbestos to asbestos in 1977, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) amended the Industrial Accident Compensation Convention in 1980 to include asbestos from asbestos in the available list of diseases, and enacted the Convention on Asbestos in 1986.

(4) From the mid-1980s, studies on the harmful environment, etc. of asbestos-handlings have started in Korea. Since the early 1990s, the Industrial Safety and Health Research Institute affiliated with the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency has investigated the working environment of asbestos-related workers and the health conditions of asbestos-related workers, and around that time, studies on the disease of asbestos-handlings on the disease of asbestos-related workers, such as conducting an epidemiological investigation on asbestos-related workers and discovering asbestos-related patients, began in full order since the early 190s.

(5) Under the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act enacted on October 29, 1982, the first statute related to asbestos included asbestos in a specific chemical stipulated in Article 39 subparag. 4 of the said Enforcement Rule, so a working environment measurement for a workplace handling asbestos was legally obligated, and a special health examination was conducted for workers handling asbestos pursuant to Article 43(3) of the said Enforcement Rule.

(6) After that amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on July 1990, asbestos was added to harmful substances subject to permission for use. The Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act was enacted on February 1, 1991, and asbestos was included in air pollutants and specific air harmful substances. The Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act was amended on September 9, 191, and asbestos was added to specific wastes. The amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was made on May 197, adding Cheong asbestos and mosite asbestos to prohibited hazardous substances, such as manufacturing, etc. The Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted on January 1, 1998, and the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was amended on June 1, 199, and the asbestos was also included in air pollutants in underground living space, and the asbestos was removed from 0% higher than 10% higher than 10% higher than 10% higher than 10% higher than 10% higher than 20 asbestos products.

(7) The asbestos permissible concentration has a standard for industrial health standards for workers in the industrial place and the general public. The U.S. Environmental Protection Office (EPA) strictly provides that all asbestos shall be 0.01/cm to the general public. For workers in the industrial place, the U.S. Industrial Safety and Health Office (OSA) sets the permissible concentration for all asbestos as 0.1/mm. However, the Korean standards set the permissible concentration for all asbestos, depending on the type of asbestos, up to 2.0 cm/cm (00cm) to 0.2/cm ( blue asbestos). On September 18, 2008, the Ministry of Labor amended the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (Ordinance No. 308) to set the permissible limit for asbestos exposure to 0.1/cm.

(8) On the contrary to the fact that there is an increase in damages caused by asbestos in the Republic of Korea and employees are entitled to industrial accident compensation in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Report Act, in light of the fact that the victims of health caused by environmental exposure, including residents living in the mine or surrounding areas of asbestos, were unable to receive compensation and support so as to make it difficult to identify specific persons, the State and local governments sharing benefits from asbestos use, as well as the industry, sharing benefits from asbestos use, and accordingly, the Act on Asbestos Injury Relief came into effect from January 1, 2011.

E. The occurrence of asbestos-related diseases of Plaintiffs A, B, L, and net M

(1) On January 8, 2009, the Plaintiff A was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos and other optical fibres, i.e., asbestosis and other optical fibres, and with symptoms, such as the current difficulty and continued respiratory, continuous respiratory emission, scarcity, scarcity, and scarcity, etc. The physical examination results lead to a state where, as a result of the physical examination, the Plaintiff A suffered chronic pulmonal difficulties due to the pulmonary change in the given pulmonary scarcity, repeated aggravation of pulmonary cancer, bad scarcity, etc. The disease at the Plaintiff A is a permanent disability, which is presumed to be 45% of the disease IV-C, and the labor ability loss rate is presumed to be 45%.

(2) On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff B started outpatients at the Yangsan National University Hospital, and received opinions on asbestosis and expansion of engine organs on December 7, 2009. The results of physical evaluation show symptoms, such as the difficulty and continued respiratory and continuous respiratory, flasing, and scarcitys, and shows symptoms, such as chronic pulmonary disorder, due to the pulmonary transformation in the future. As a result of physical evaluation, Plaintiff B’s above disease is a permanent disability, and is likely to cause lung cancer and bad scarcitys, and is presumed to have been 45% of the loss rate of labor ability. In addition, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service decided that Plaintiff B’s application for medical care pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act of Grade B as of March 9, 2010 (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”).

(3) On August 11, 2010, while having been diagnosed as waste cancer at the Mandong University Hospital, and hospitalized treatment from October 29, 2009 in accordance with the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service's decision, the deceased died due to acute pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary Z. On December 14, 2011, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid KRW 107,058,280 to the deceased on December 14, 201 in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. (4) From around 205, the deceased from around September 24, 2008, pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary and pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary m.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim against the United Nations E.S.

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) Grounds for liability

According to the above facts, since asbestos exposure is likely to occur as well as asbestos-related diseases, such as asbestosis, waste cancer, malute, etc., at the time of exposure, and it is highly probable that asbestos-related diseases may occur after being exposed to asbestos, Defendant Y is liable to compensate Plaintiff A, B, and net M for damage caused by nonperformance of the duty to protect the Plaintiff’s labor contract or the Plaintiff A, B, and network M and network M due to nonperformance of the duty to compensate for damage caused by negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, B and network L, and network M, even though they were negligent in providing employees with specific safety education on the contents of asbestos diseases caused by exposure, prevention, etc.

As to this, Defendant No.S. asserted that, in the case of the network M, Defendant No.S. is not liable for damages since there is no causation between the work in the United Nations E.S. and the death of the network M, Defendant No.S.

According to the fact finding by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service on Jan. 14, 2013, the deceased M&WO applied for industrial accident insurance on Sep. 26, 2008, but it was diagnosed as asbestosis and there was no complication of active tuberculosis, and thus subject to medical care on Feb. 23, 2009. The deceased M&W applied for an advice of 10 p.m. 20 p.m. to the effect that it was not consistent with the first half of May 2009, 200 p.m. 1 p. 20 p.m., the deceased T&WO's request for an advice of 10 p.m. 20 p.m. 20 p. 3 p.m., the deceased T&WO's request for an advice of 10 p.m. 20 p.m., the deceased T&WO's request for treatment.

However, in light of the purport of the argument as a result of the fact-finding conducted on January 14, 2013 by the court of the first instance, it is difficult to view that there was no possibility that the asbestos was infected by the pulmonary disease of the deceased, and that there was no possibility that the pulmonary disease was infected by the pulmonary disease of the deceased, such as asbestos and other optical fibres, and that there was no possibility that the pulmonary disease was infected by the pulmonary disease of the deceased, and that there was no possibility that the pulmonary disease was infected by the pulmonary disease of the deceased, and that there was no possibility that the pulmonary disease was infected by the pulmonary disease of the pulmonary disease of the deceased, and that there was no possibility that the pulmonary disease was infected by the pulmonary disease of the pulmonary disease of the deceased, and that there was no possibility that the pulmonary disease might have been infected by the pulmonary disease of the deceased immediately after the pulmonary disease of the deceased.

The above facts alone are insufficient to reverse the recognition of the above causal relationship, and there is no other evidence to reverse it. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant 1 E.S. is without merit, but these circumstances should be taken into account from the limitation of liability as seen below.

(2) Limitation of liability

On the other hand, the plaintiff A, B, and the network MM asbestos in the work site accompanied by the risk caused by asbestos in the workplace shall be properly worn out, and the defendant No. 1 S. S. S. S. S.

Although the provision of clothes to Gap and work clothes and demanding the installation of dust-proof facilities and removal of dust, there were errors by failing to wear a dust-proof gar, or neglecting the above demands. Considering that the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the Plaintiff A, B, and the network M’s error caused by asbestosis or waste cancer, it should be taken into account. On the other hand, as in the case of net M, the death of the network M directly caused other diseases, and it seems that the status of asbestos-related diseases, such as asbestosis, etc. at the time was not serious, and therefore, it appears that the situation of asbestos-related diseases such as asbestosis at the time was not serious. Accordingly, in light of the above facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to determine the rate as 50% in case of net M, and 10% in case of the rest of the Plaintiffs as 50% in relation to the relationship between the Plaintiffs and 90% in each case.

B. Scope of damages against Plaintiff A

(a) Actual income: 5,213,018 won;

(1) Gender: The period of operation and the number of days on July 5, 1951: From January 8, 2009, which is the first day of treatment of Plaintiff A (1) to October 25, 201, which the said Plaintiff seeks from October 25, 201 to July 4, 201, and the second day of each month.

(4) The latter disability: the loss of 45% on a permanent basis.

(5) The current price at the time of a disaster: 5,213,018 won (the following table):

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Expenses for treatment: 369,320 won;

(3) Limitation of liability: 90%

* Calculation: 4,691,716 won from lost earnings (=5,213,018 won x 90% x less than won hereinafter the same shall apply) 332,388 won from lost medical expenses (=369,320 won x 90%) total property damage 5,024,104 won

(4) Mutual aid: Defendant SIS asserted that the amount of temporary layoff benefits received by Plaintiff A should be deducted from KRW 24,450,310 and health care benefit 1,514,370. However, according to the fact inquiry by the court of the first instance on February 1, 2013, Plaintiff A paid temporary layoff benefits and health care benefit as alleged by Defendant SIS, but it is recognized that the temporary layoff benefits were for the period of suspension from January 14, 2012 to January 14, 2013. Thus, the above temporary layoff benefits cannot be deducted from the above actual income with a different calculation period, and according to the fact inquiry by Plaintiff A’s statement and the above fact inquiry, the above health care benefit was directly paid to the hospital, and the king medical care expense claimed by Plaintiff A cannot be acknowledged as having been directly paid to the hospital, and the above claim by the Plaintiff cannot be justified from the above medical care benefit expense.

(5) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for consideration: All the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the Plaintiff’s age, gender, occupation, family relationship, background of the disaster of this case, status and degree of injury and disability of Plaintiff A, degree of responsibility of Plaintiff A, and the fact that Plaintiff A did not seek future medical expenses.

(2) Amount determined: 40,000,000 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, empirical rule, entry of Gap 2 and 10 evidence, result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the Busan White Hospital affiliated with the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

(6) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant S has a duty to pay the Plaintiff KRW 45,024,104 (i.e., property damage + KRW 5,024,104 + solatium 40,00,000) as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 14, 2011 to May 10, 201, which is the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case as sought by the said Plaintiff, and it is obviously reasonable for Defendant SIS to dispute the existence and scope of its obligation as to whether it is or not.

C. Scope of damages against Plaintiff B

(a) Actual income: 83,982,261 won;

(1) Gender: Women, date of birth, April 15, 1961.

(2) Period and number of days of operation: From August 13, 2009, which is the starting date of treatment of Plaintiff B, to April 14, 2021, which is sought by the said Plaintiff from December 7, 2009 to April 14, 2021, and each 22th day of each month.

(4) The latter disability: the loss of 45% on a permanent basis.

(5) The current price at the time of a disaster: 83,982,261 won (the following table):

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Limitation of liability: 90%

* Calculation: lost income 75,584,034 won (=83,982,261 won x 90%)

(3) Deduction: 42,482,440 won for temporary disability compensation received by the plaintiff B from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service shall be deducted from the actual income of the plaintiff B (the above plaintiff is the plaintiff).

*: 33,101,594 won (=75,584,034 won - 42,482,440 won)

(4) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for consideration: All the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the Plaintiff B’s age, gender, occupation, family relation, background and degree of the disaster in this case, Plaintiff B’s injury and degree of disability, degree of responsibility for Plaintiff B’s injury and disability, Korea Labor Welfare Corporation paid disability compensation to Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B did not seek future medical expenses.

(2) Amount determined: 40,000,000 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, empirical rule, entry of Gap evidence 3, result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the Busan White Hospital affiliated with the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

(5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, as to the damages amounting to KRW 73,101,594 in total ( = KRW 33,101,594 in daily income + KRW 40,000 in consolation money + KRW 68,958,152 in the part cited in the judgment of the court of first instance after the date of the above accident, it is evident that the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the above plaintiff, is the next day of the record from January 14, 201 to May 10, 201, which is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, the amount of damages amounting to KRW 5,101,594 in total (= KRW 33,101,594 in daily income + KRW 40,000 in consolation money) and KRW 68,958,152 in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the amount of damages amounting to KRW 20 per annum from the above 20th day after the judgment of the above.

(c) Scope of compensation for damage related to the net L;

(1) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for taking into account: All the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the age, gender, occupation, network L and C, Plaintiff C, and D’s family relationship, the circumstances and results of the instant accident, the degree of liability for the network L, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation paid medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits for the network L, etc.

(2) The determined amount.

L: 40,000,000

Plaintiff C: 15,000,000 won

Plaintiff D: 5,000,000 won

(2) Inheritance relationship

Plaintiff C: 24,000,000 won (i.e., consolation money of the Deceased KRW 40,000,000 x 3/5) Plaintiff D: 16,000,000 won (i.e., consolation money of the Deceased KRW 40,00,000) (i.e., KRW 40,000) of the Deceased / [based on recognition] without dispute; each entry of evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant 1 U.S.’s total amount of KRW 39,00,000 for damages to Plaintiff C (i.e., KRW 24,000,000 in inheritance + KRW 15,000,000 in inheritance + KRW 21,000,000 in total for damages to Plaintiff D (i.e., KRW 16,000 in inheritance + KRW 5,000 in inheritance + KRW 5,000 in inheritance + KRW 5,000 in inheritance) after the date of the above disaster, and each of them is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 20% as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 14, 2011 to May 10, 2012, which is deemed reasonable for Defendant 1 to dispute on the existence and scope of its obligation to perform as requested by the above Plaintiffs.

(d) Scope of compensation for damage related to the network M;

(a) Net-import (net M): 82,656,912 won;

① Gender: Male and date of birth on June 6, 195: From July 26, 2009 to June 5, 2015, which is 60 years of age from July 26, 2009, the period of operation and date of birth of the deceased M: 20 days of each month (the above plaintiffs sought lost income from May 6, 2008, but there is no evidence to support that the deceased M was hospitalized or was deprived of labor ability before the date of the above recognition, the above plaintiffs' assertion is rejected).

(3) Income: The market wage rate per day for an ordinary urban part for each period (the following table):

④ Calculation of the current price at the time of a disaster: 82,656,912 (the following table; hereinafter the same shall apply) (100% of the labor capacity loss rate from July 26, 2009 to October 9, 2009, which is the date of death of the deceased M, and 1/3 of the living cost from October 10, 209, which is the date following the death of the deceased M).

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Wrons treatment expenses: 15,377,249 won;

(3) Limitation of liability: 50%

* Calculation: 48,984,080 won (i.e., daily income of KRW 41,328,456 + KRW 7,655,912 + 50%) Property damage (i.e., KRW 15,377,249 + KRW 50 per cent, KRW 50 per cent, and KRW 41,328,456 + KRW 7,65,624).

(4) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for consideration: The circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the age, gender, occupation, network M, Plaintiff E, F, G's family relationship, the circumstances and results of the instant disaster, and the degree of responsibility for network M

(2) The determined amount.

Net M: 20,000,000

Plaintiff E: 10,000,000 won

Plaintiff F: 5,000,000 won

Plaintiff G: 5,000,000 won

(5) Inheritance relations

Plaintiff E: 29,564,605 [The deceased’s property damage = (the deceased’s property damage of 48,984,080 + the deceased’s consolation money of 20,000,000) X3/7];

Plaintiff F and G: Each of 19,709,737 won = (38,984,080 won + (20,000 won of consolation money of the Deceased) X2/7)

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, experience experience, entry of Gap 5 and 12 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

(6) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant No. 1,564,605 won in total to Plaintiff E (i.e., 29,564,605 won in inheritance + 10,00,000 won in inheritance) 24,709,737 won in total for each of the damages to Plaintiff F andG (i.e., 19,709,737 won in inheritance + 5,000,000 won in inheritance + 5,000 won in inheritance) and each of the damages to Plaintiff E after the date of the above disaster, as sought by the above Plaintiffs, is clearly recorded on the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case from January 14, 2011 to September 24, 2013, where it is deemed reasonable for Defendant U.N. to resist the existence and scope of its performance obligation, Defendant No. 1 is obligated to pay 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act and 20% per annum as to the promotion of the lawsuit.

3. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Although Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to guarantee all citizens’ right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment pursuant to Article 35 of the Constitution, Defendant Republic of Korea was negligent in failing to take any measures against asbestos in violation thereof, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages

2) In other words, Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Republic of Korea”) issued a judgment ordering asbestos manufacturers to compensate for damage in the United States in 1973, which became widely known, and the risk of asbestos was known or known, provided only the working environment measurement on the workplace where asbestos is handled, the special health examination for workers handling asbestos, while enacting the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on October 29, 1982, and did not enact relevant provisions that stipulate that the installation of a national exhaustor for asbestos factories, the installation of asbestos exhaustor for asbestos factories, and the obligation to report and improve asbestos dust measurement results in asbestos factories in the asbestos factories, so such legislative omission in Korea is unlawful by lack of rationality

In addition, Defendant Republic of Korea revised the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Ordinance No. 308 of the Ministry of Labor) on September 18, 2008 to determine the permissible standards for asbestos exposure as 0.1/cm. From January 2009, Defendant Republic of Korea prevented the manufacture or import of asbestos-containing products, such as building materials, the weight of which exceeds 0.1% of the product weight, and it is too late compared to other countries, and asbestos injury relief Act was enacted on March 3, 2010 and enforced January 201. In light of the above circumstances, Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty of care to protect the lives of citizens from dangerous substances, but was not prevented damage caused by asbestos exposure.

3) Defendant Republic of Korea is responsible for monitoring and supervising that asbestos which is a hazardous substance should not be treated in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the former Labor Standards Act and the former Act on the Prevention of Pollution, and for monitoring and supervising that asbestos is not exposed to an asbestos disease in inevitable cases, and for neglecting the legal duty to take measures to prevent the pollution of asbestos factories of the UNFCCC, even though Defendant 1 was obligated to take measures to prevent the pollution of

4) Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate the Plaintiff et al. for damages caused by the instant disaster based on the aforementioned tort liability.

B. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion about legislative omission

Under the parliamentary democracy adopted by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the National Assembly is a state agency that takes the role of forming a unified will in accordance with the principle of majority through discussions reflecting diverse opinions or benefits to be held by the National Assembly, and a member of the National Assembly who takes part in the process is not a political responsibility in relation to the legislation as a matter of principle in relation to the whole nation and does not have a legal obligation in response to individual rights. Thus, even though the legislative contents of a member of the National Assembly clearly violate the terms of the Constitution, it cannot be deemed as an illegal act under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act unless the National Assembly clearly violates the terms of the Constitution, and in the same context, even though the State bears the lack of specific legislation imposed by the Constitution with respect to a certain matter, it cannot be deemed as an illegal act under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act unless there are special cases such as the National Assembly's failure to perform such legislative obligation intentionally or by negligence. Where specific legislative obligation is not recognized, tort caused by omission can be established.

There is no room (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da33469, May 29, 2008).

In light of the above facts and the overall purport of arguments, the study on harmful environment, etc. in Korea began since the late 1980s, and since the early 1990s on asbestosis patients, the study on asbestos disease in the workplace workers such as investigating the working environment of asbestos workplaces and the health conditions of workers, and conducting epidemiological investigations on asbestos-related workers, etc. have started in full time since the early 1990s. ② Defendant Republic of Korea did not legally enforce working environment measurement of the workplace where asbestos is treated in the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety Act of October 2992. The legislative purpose of the Republic of Korea was to prevent the Plaintiffs from manufacturing, taking, and using asbestos, etc., which are highly dangerous and dangerous since the late 190s, and the legislative purpose of the Republic of Korea was to ensure that there were no specific reasons to recognize the change in the legislative structure of the Republic of Korea as well as the legislative purpose of the Act on Environmental Protection in light of the fact that there was no specific change in the legislative purpose of the Act on Environmental Protection.

However, the above statutes cited by the plaintiffs merely stipulate that when employers, factories, and places of business violate the safety and health standards set by the State, the State may take administrative measures for supervision, and it is difficult to see that the State has a specific obligation to supervise the defendant's Republic of Korea not to handle asbestos or to take measures to prevent pollution of asbestos directly from treating asbestos from the above statutes. The environmental rights guaranteed by the Constitution should be specifically established in light of the explicit legal provisions or the purport and reasoning of the relevant statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da56153, Jul. 22, 1997). The provisions of Article 35 of the Constitution on environmental rights cannot be deemed to have granted the plaintiffs specific judicial rights directly to the plaintiffs. Thus, the reasons asserted by the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have committed unlawful acts by the defendant Republic of Korea without taking measures against the danger of asbestos, and it is difficult to deem that the plaintiffs suffered damage by the defendant's direct act due to the defendant's Republic of Korea, and there is no reason to acknowledge the tort liability of the defendant Republic of Korea.

4. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant Nitice

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant Natives knew that the production of blue asbestos was prohibited by the announcement of the Japanese government, and that the occurrence of a fatal asbestos disease may occur when asbestos was exposed to the cryptite substance. Defendant Natives is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident, based on the tort liability, by the tort liability of Defendant Natives, on the following grounds: (a) the first day of Defendant’s establishment of the Sveststst Co., Ltd in collaboration with the United Nations on June 2, 1971; and (b) the installation of the lux asbestos manufacturing equipment in the instant asbestos plant; and (c) the production of lux asbestos in the instant asbestos plant; and (b) the production of lux asbestos was caused by the asbestos disease.

B. Determination

In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that asbestos was prohibited from being produced in Japan or if asbestos was exposed to it in a foreign company around 1971, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was concealed. Rather, the following circumstances such as ① No. 1 through 7 and No. 9 are prohibited from being produced in Japan, and there is no possibility that the production of asbestos would have been prohibited in Japan even around 1971, ② the production of asbestos was prohibited in Japan as well as in Japan before and after the 1971. The Japanese government enacted the former Rules on the Prevention of Asbestos Disasters (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on the Prevention of Asbestos Disasters") to the extent that it had no possibility of using asbestos in a foreign company's domestic and foreign market. ② The Japanese government enacted the Rules on the Prevention of Asbestos Disasters to the extent that it had no possibility of using asbestos in a foreign company's domestic and foreign market before and after the 1971.

As to this, the plaintiffs' predictability in liability for damages caused by asbestos is not specific awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the malicious stimule, but it is sufficient to recognize the risk of causing serious damage to health and life by exposure to asbestos dust. Thus, at the time of the establishment of the asbestos plant in this case in 1971, the possibility of the defendant Nitice's predictability is sufficiently recognized. However, the above assertion is reasonable as the criteria for determining the violation of the duty of care by the parties to the labor contract or the user of the asbestos in the case of the plaintiff et al., but as seen above, it is merely just to acquire the status of shareholders as a joint venture with the United Nations Estimule, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff et al. was the parties to the labor contract or the user status of the plaintiff et al.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Lee Jong-il are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea, Nices are all justified. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs Gap, Eul, and D is just in conclusion, all appeals against the above plaintiffs are dismissed as without merit. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Lee Il-il in part of the judgment against the plaintiff Lee Il-il in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which partially accepted the above plaintiff's appeal against the plaintiff Lee Il-il in part and ordered the payment of the above money additionally recognized at the court of first instance against the defendant Lee Il-sung. Since the remaining part against the above plaintiffs is legitimate, the remaining appeals against the defendant Lee Il-il and the appeal against the defendant Kim Il-sung and the remaining part of the appeal against the plaintiffs against the plaintiffs are dismissed as well as the remaining part of the judgment against the plaintiff Lee Byung-il and the plaintiff Lee Byung-il in whole judgment against the plaintiff.

The presiding judge, Judge Park Jong-hun

Judges, Senior Superintendent

Judges Kim Jong-chul

(i)For the purpose of calculation, the date of the occurrence of a disaster for the calculation of the lost income shall be on the basis of the date of commencement of treatment, and, where the date of commencement of treatment cannot be known,

(ar)on the basis of the date of action.

2) The net M was hospitalized for 76 days in total from July 10, 2009 to July 13, 2009, and from July 30, 2009 to October 9, 2009, among those being hospitalized for 76 days in total.

9. The deceased person’s net M is deemed hospitalized from July 26, 2009 to October 9, 2009 for the convenience of calculation, and the disaster day is deemed to be July 26, 2009.

(c)

3) Article 73 (Supervisory Administrative Measures) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4220 of January 13, 1990) (3) Construction of a business employing workers.

If water, dormitories, and other accessory construction machinery, equipment, raw materials or materials are contrary to the standards determined for safety and health, the Ministry of Social Affairs shall employer.

shall order the suspension or alteration of the use, or other necessary matters, in whole or in part, to the effect that the use is suspended or altered.

4) The Minister of Health and Welfare under Article 6 (Improvement Order) of the former High Pollution Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 3078 of Dec. 31, 197), Article 6 (Order of Improvement)

If it is deemed that the level of inquiry emission or the degree of noise and vibration is not in compliance with the permissible emission standards as referred to in Article 3, a period shall be

Improvement or replacement of the emission facilities or pollutants emission preventive facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “preventive facilities”) by the owner or manager of such facilities, and other completions thereof.

may order any action required by the court.

Article 7 (Order, etc. for Relocation of Facilities) (1) The Minister of Health and Welfare, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City, or the Do governor

If it is impossible or deemed necessary to carry out an improvement order, the owner or the manager of the facilities shall relocate the factory or the place of business.

(2) With respect to the owner or manager of the factory or the place of business to be relocated under the preceding paragraph, the relocation required therefor.

A loan for all or part of the expenses may be arranged, or tax reduction or exemption may be made under the conditions as prescribed by the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act.

Article 8 (Suspension of Operation) (1) The Minister of Health and Welfare shall order a person who violates the improvement order as prescribed in Article 6, in whole or in part, the emission facilities concerned.

(2) The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City, or the Do Governor may order the suspension of operation of the facilities.

When harm and living environment damage are deemed urgent under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such damage, notwithstanding paragraph (1).

The restriction or suspension of operation hours or other necessary measures may be immediately ordered to the emission facilities.