The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that “When any environmental pollution or environmental damage has occurred, a person who has caused such environmental pollution or environmental damage shall compensate for such damage,” as the title “Strict liability for damage caused by environmental pollution”.

“......”

This is a special provision on the provisions of tort in the Civil Code (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da50338, Sept. 11, 2008, etc.). The victim of environmental pollution or environmental damage can claim damages to the person who caused the damage.

Therefore, when damage is inflicted due to environmental pollution or environmental damage, the person who caused the damage shall compensate for the damage, even if there is no reason to return to him/her pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da23321, Feb. 15, 2017; 2016Da35802, Sept. 13, 2018). Generally, in a claim for damage compensation due to a tort, the burden of proving the relationship between the perpetrator’s act and the victim’s damage, the burden of proof is borne by the claimant.

However, in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to air pollution or water pollution, etc., it would result in the refusal of a scientific strict certification on the existence of a factual person-related relationship to the victim.

On the other hand, since the technical and economic aspect is much more easy to investigate the cause of the perpetrator than the victim, and the perpetrator is likely to conceal the cause of the damage, the perpetrator may recognize the causal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim's damage, unless the perpetrator proves that the perpetrator discharged a harmful cause substance and arrived at the damaged object and caused the damage.

However, at least in this case.