2018 Doz. 113455 Compensation (Refund)

○ ○

Law Firm ○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

1. Kim Jong-ray

2. Kim Jong-chul.

3. Kim Jong-chul

4. Kim○-si;

5. Kim Jong-mun

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

[Defendant-Appellee]

October 18, 2019

November 8, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 149,930,000 and the instant case as from November 10, 2018

Until the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, 5% per annum, and 12% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

(1) The Plaintiff shall pay the amount of the money so paid (as to the claim for damages and liability for warranty arising from a tort)

The claim for damages was selected as one of the parties.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased Kim Jong-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "Death") owned the 1,322 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the instant land") in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu from July 23, 1978 to July 30, 2002. The Defendants are the deceased's successors, and the Plaintiff acquired the instant land from the deceased, etc. and entrusted the said land to A on May 25, 2018 after acquiring the ownership.

B. The Plaintiff and Gangseo-gu purchased the instant land from the Deceased on June 25, 2002, and July 2002.

30. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer (the Plaintiff’s share 1/1,322, May 5, 991, May 1/32, 330, May 1/32, 322), and the Plaintiff purchased shares in the ownership of the said river from the Gangwon-do on March 6, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 25, 2018.

C. During construction of officetels on the instant land, the Plaintiff collected earth and sand and requested the measurement and analysis to B, a waste analysis agency, to a waste analysis agency. On October 22, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) found that hazardous substances, such as aluriium, lead, oil ingredients, etc., were detected from earth and sand on the instant land; (b) contracted the construction of landfill waste disposal to C, a waste disposal agency, and paid KRW 149,930,00 at its cost on May 27, 2019.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 16, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) that damages damages due to illegal acts

In the soil and sand of the instant land, harmful substances such as copper, lead, oil ingredients were detected, and the instant land was buried in the structure of reclaimed land, waste soil and stone, waste concrete, and other wastes. Before selling the instant land to the Plaintiff and Gangseo-gu, the Defendant buried wastes such as the lower structure of reclaimed land, waste soil and stone, etc. and caused soil contamination, and then purchased the instant land and sold and distributed it to the Plaintiff who acquired the ownership of the instant land, thereby incurring damages from the purification and disposal costs of the said waste and contaminated soil, etc. As such, the Defendants, the deceased’s successors, jointly and severally, are liable to pay the Plaintiff the compensation for damages incurred by the tort amounting to KRW 149,930,00 and delay damages.

(2) Claim for damages due to warranty liability

In addition, waste, etc. was illegally buried in the instant land sold by the deceased, and soil was detected in large quantities. This constitutes a case of defect in the nature that should have ordinary land, and thus, the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above disposal costs of KRW 149, 930,00, and delay damages pursuant to the warranty liability under Article 580 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in the statements and images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14 of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14, the building category of the land of this case was miscellaneous up to July 1984. In light of the fact that the building constructed on the land of this case was the steel-frame sand site panel structure of the deceased around 1992 and the main ○○○○ was a warehouse, the possibility that the deceased would not have discharged soil contaminants such as concrete, glass, oil, etc. claimed by the plaintiff during the process of constructing the building of this case or using the warehouse of this case is not significant. ② The plaintiff had operated the business, such as maintaining the automobile with the trade name of Hosung, Co., Ltd. from the land of this case, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case was discharged in the above land of this case or no other evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of different types of judge