In a case where: (a) the Korean Racing Association operates a horse park every year; (b) the Korean Racing Association spreads large quantities of salt not less than 200 tons a year into the racing in order to prevent interference with horse racing, and (c) the Korean Racing Association installs a plastic house on the neighboring land of the horse park and operates the farm members; and (d) the Korean Racing Association claimed that the salt emitted on the racing course flows into the land through underground water to the land and caused damage to the farm members, and the Korean Racing Association claimed compensation for damages pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the case holding that the Korean Racing Association is liable for damages under Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, in a case where the Korean Racing Association claimed compensation against the Korean Racing Association.

In the course of operating the horse park, the Korean Racing Association: (a) spreads a large quantity of salt from the horse race track to the race track in order to prevent interference with the passage of the horse race track; (b) installed a vinyl house on the neighboring land of the horse park and operated the farmer; (c) claimed that the salt spreaded on the race track flows into the land through underground water and caused damage to the farmer, not due to the growth and fruit of the blue tree planted on the race track; and (d) claimed damages against the Korean Racing Association.

The case holding that Gap et al. planted seedlings on the above land in order to harvest and sell blue heat, and most of them were killed in the above land without properly raising or putting them into the ground, and that it seems that the ground water in the horse park flow into the surrounding river through the farmland of the farm site, and according to the Environmental Management Corporation's report, a large quantity of salt was detected from the samples of the underground water collected in the surrounding area of the horse park, and that it is judged that there is a cause for the inflow of salt in the horse park, and that it is presumed that there is a possibility that Gap et al. will move to the neighboring area because pollutants used by the racing flow into the ground water, and that Gap et al. did not properly cause damage to Gap et al. due to the concentration of the above land and caused damage to Gap et al. to the extent that it would not actually lose economic value due to the concentration of the above land, and that Gap et al. did not cause damage to Gap's soil contamination in accordance with the Framework Act on Environmental Policy.

Article 3 subparag. 1 and 4 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, Articles 7 and 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Seo Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Racing Association (Attorney Gyeong-nam et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 2, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 20,771,857 won with 5% interest per annum from August 22, 2017 to July 4, 2019, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 30% is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 71,416,00 won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, or by considering the overall purport of the arguments.

A. The Defendant operated the horse park of the trade name “△△△△△△△△△△△△△” (hereinafter “instant horse park”). The Defendant distributed a large quantity of salt from at least 200 tons per year to the racing, in order to prevent any interference with the passage of the horse race track, as sand in the winter season, is ice, and thus, spread off a large quantity of salt up to 200 tons per annum to the racing.

B. The Plaintiffs, as married couple, have installed a vinyl in approximately 1,93 square meters and operated a vinyl in approximately 1,935 square meters among the areas between the 2,093 square meters (number 1 omitted) and the 2,093 square meters (the part of 1,046 square meters, which was then divided into the same (number 2 omitted); hereinafter, “instant land”). The instant farmer is located in the same part of the Gan Park Park in the area between the Yangcheon-dong, ○○-dong, (number 1 omitted) and the urban high-speed roads in the urban high-speed roads in the city of Do.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs

Around 201, in order to harvest and sell blulue heat, the Plaintiffs planted blue seedlings to the Agricultural Center of this case. The Defendant, on the wind that flows into the land of this case through groundwater, caused damage to the Plaintiff, not due to the growth and fruit of blue tree trees, on the wind that flows into the land of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred therefrom.

(2) Defendant

The Plaintiffs were planted in the instant farm, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the trees were dead. Even if such fact is acknowledged, the Defendant, even from 2011 to 2016, performed the work of cleaning sand on the racing of the horse park of this case as water and shipping the water out to the outside through the specialized commissioning enterprise. As such, it should be deemed that it is not possible to increase the salt ion concentration due to salt distributed to the said racing into the said racing in the ground, and then to increase the salt ion concentration, or cause salt damage to the soil of the instant land to the ground. If the salt ion concentration of underground water was increased, it is not because it was not due to salt spraying into the horse park of this case, but due to salt spraying on the road of the instant horse, such as salt ioning on the said racing.

B. Criteria for determination

(1) Generally, in a claim for damages arising from a tort case, the claimant bears the burden of proving the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage. However, in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to air pollution or water pollution, there are many areas where the cause substance discharged by an enterprise indirectly damages by using air or water as a medium, and it is difficult or impossible to prove the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage in nature. Therefore, it is highly difficult or impossible to prove the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage in nature. Therefore, it can be a result of the de facto refusal of judicial relief due to pollution to demand a scientific strict proof as to the existence of factual causal relationship to the victim in the pollution lawsuit. However, it is highly easy for the victim to investigate the cause more easily than the victim, but it is likely to conceal the cause. Thus, it is appropriate for the victim company to assume that it cannot be exempt from the responsibility of the perpetrator, unless it proves that it is possible to prove it from the harmful substance to the extent that it reaches the damaged object and it reaches the damaged object.

(2) Article 7 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that “Any person who causes environmental pollution or environmental damage due to his/her own act or business activity shall be liable to prevent such pollution or damage, to recover and restore the polluted or damaged environment, and to bear the expenses to be incurred in remedy for the damage caused by environmental pollution or environmental damage.” Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that “In cases where any environmental damage or environmental damage has occurred due to environmental pollution or environmental damage, the person who causes such environmental pollution or environmental damage shall compensate for such damage.”

The term "environmental" as referred to in this Act means the natural environment and living environment (Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy), and environmental pollution means air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, marine pollution, radioactive contamination, noise, vibration, malodor, sunshine obstruction, etc. which are generated by business activities and other human activities, which cause damage to human health or the environment (Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy).

Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy is a special provision for tort under the Civil Act, and is a basic provision for claiming damages against a person who has caused environmental pollution or environmental damage (hereinafter referred to as “person who has caused such environmental damage”). In light of the content and structure of the aforementioned provision, the cases where liability due to environmental pollution or environmental damage is recognized are not limited to those arising from a workplace, and the person who has caused the environmental damage is obligated to compensate for the damage without asking for the cause attributable to it pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy regardless of whether the person is a business operator (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da35802, Sept. 13, 2018).

C. Determination

(1) Grounds for liability

(A) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant, as shown in the attached Table 1, carried out the work of cleaning sand on the racing of the horse park of this case on 27 occasions as water between March 14, 201 and May 10, 2016.

(B) However, considering the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 10 as well as Gap evidence Nos. 5, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the appraisal by the non-party, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, each of the above facts and the images of Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4 are insufficient to reverse the judgment, and there is no counter-proof evidence, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused to the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, since a large quantity of salt emitted into the Gyeongma Park Park in this case’s racing, and thereby, the concentration of salt contained in the soil of this case’s land was high.

1) The salt that the Defendant scattered in large quantities on the racing route of the horse park of this case for each winter, appears to have been flown into ground water by digging in the ground. The ground water of the horse park of this case seems to have been flown in the direction of solar spring through the north side of the city, including the land of this case.

2) The Environmental Management Corporation made a report on the collection of soil and underground water samples from 0,00 ○○-dong (number 3 omitted) in the vicinity of the relevant Mama Park to determine whether the contamination of underground water has been spread due to the use of salt in order to prevent ice in the instant Mama Park, and to present the current state of pollution and source of pollution, and to collect and investigate soil and underground water samples from 0,000 ○○-dong (number 3 omitted) around the instant Mama Park Park, and prepare a report thereon. According to this, it is determined that some of the samples of underground water collected in the said area were detected from some of the samples of the groundwater collected in the said area, which is likely to cause the inflow of salt in the instant Ma Park, and it is presumed that there is a possibility that the pollutants used in the racing will flow into the neighboring area with the flow of time.

3) At around 2012, in order to harvest and sell Blulue heat, the Plaintiffs planted blue seedlings on a plastic house with a size of 1,935 square meters among the instant land. They did not properly grow or have failed to do so, and most of these trees were dead. The Plaintiffs seem to have lost their de facto economic value because of the poor weather of trees in the present 100 glue, to the extent that they could not enter into a 1,935 square meters of the instant land.

4) On July 12, 2016, the plaintiffs collected groundwater of the instant land and requested an inspection to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Health and Environment Research Institute. As a result, it appears that the salt ion concentration of the said collected water is 298§¯/liter. This is the numerical value exceeding 250§¯/liter, which is the limit of the water quality standards for agricultural water as determined by the relevant statutes.

5) Among the flower complexes created in the vicinity of the horse park of this case, some people operating farm members in the north of the horse park of this case filed an application for environmental dispute with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee around 2008. In this case, the National Institute of Agricultural Research and Development of the Korea Agricultural Research and Development Institute of the Korea Agricultural Research and Development of the Korea Agricultural Research and Development Institute of the Korea Agricultural Research and Development of the Korea Agricultural Research and Development Institute of the Korea Agricultural Research and Development of the Korea Agricultural Research and Development Institute around March 2013, 2013 for on-site investigations, it is presumed that the water pollution of groundwater caused by salt used in the relevant horse park was damaged by weak crops due to water pollution. In addition to the salt used in the relevant horse park, it is presumed that the possibility of water pollution caused by the salt in the instant city of Gyeongcheon City, etc. is lower in light of the quantity and the concentration of ingredients of fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, etc.

The Central Environmental Dispute Resolution Committee, on April 12, 2013 and June 20, 2013, used salt in a considerably large quantity (231~361t) each year after the opening of the horse park. ② The concentration of groundwater discharged from the pote Park was 246-427m/liter, and the concentration of groundwater discharged from the pote Park was 386-4,087m/liter to the extent of water quality standards, and the density of groundwater discharged from the pote Park was 341-345m/liter of groundwater in the instant Gyeonge Park; ④ The degree of damage caused by the Defendant’s high concentration of groundwater discharged from the pote Park to the area near the pote Park to the extent of 1200-100-100-400-10-180-108-20-208-20-300-10-10,000-2.

On January 23, 2017, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2075801, 2075818) also rendered a judgment that recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages on November 27, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit to confirm the existence of the Defendant’s obligation against the applicant for adjudication as Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap5252555, and the applicant for adjudication also filed a counterclaim for the claim for damages (2013Gahap52806). The appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2075801, 2075818) also made a decision in lieu of the Defendant’s liability for damages, which became final and conclusive as it is.

6) As seen above, a number of civil petitions filed by the Defendant that caused damage, such as withers and powder farmers, due to salt scattered in the horse park of this case, caused to the death of flowers and pots, etc., on March 30, 2016, the Defendant requested a survey service on the impact of the instant horse park on ground that the instant horse park had on ground that it was conducting water resource development and environmental impact assessment business on March 30, 2016.

During the period from April 1, 2016 to November 26, 2016, Simna Co., Ltd. drafted a report on investigation of Hamman on November 2016, through a basic investigation, repair geological survey (the observation survey of groundwater, the exploration of underground structures, the intensive drilling survey, the installation of observation wells, the measurement and current status, the analysis of crop-related ingredients, the analysis of water quality, the water pumping test, the administration test, the administration test, etc.), the assessment of groundwater pollution, the consultation on technology, and the public hearing of residents, etc., and the salt scattered on the racing of the Ma Park in this case was classified as the major cause of nearby groundwater pollution.

본문내 포함된 표 8.1. 오염원인 ▶ 충적층 및 암반 지하수의 전기전도도(EC)의 등치선도 분석 결과, 남쪽 경마장 부지 인근을 중심으로 1,000㎲/㎝ 이상의 높은 값을 보이며, 북쪽 방향으로 갈수록 농도가 낮아지는 경향을 나타내고 있고, 1차(7월) 분석에 비해 2차(9월) 분석의 결과 전기전도도(EC) 수치가 2,000㎲/cm 이상으로 높은 지역은 좁아지거나 없어지고 있으나, 1,000㎲/㎝ 이상의 오염지역은 폭넓게 확대되는 경향을 나타내고 있다. 이러한 결과로부터 오염원이 경마장 트랙을 중심으로 북쪽으로 확산되어 가는 경향을 확인하였다. ▶ 파이퍼 다이어그램(Piper Diagram) 분석 결과, Ca-Cl(NO3) 유형이 50% 이상 높게 분포하고 있어, 과업 지역은 농업활동이나 생활하수 등의 인위적인 오염원에 의해 영향을 받은 것으로 판단된다. ▶ 1차 및 2차 수질분석 결과 지하수의 이온분포(염소, 나트륨, 칼슘, 양이온, 음이온 및 TDS)는 경마장 인근에서 농도가 높게 나타나고 북쪽으로 갈수록 낮아지는 경향을 보이고 있다. 또한 모든 이온의 농도가 경마장 부지에서 멀어질수록 낮아지는 경향을 뚜렷이 보이고 있고, 염소이온의 분포가 250㎎/ℓ(생활용수 및 농업용수 기준)를 상회하는 지역이 민원 발생지역과 대부분 중복되어 나타난다. 경마장 트랙 주변의 오염원이 북쪽으로 확산되어 가는 경향을 파악할 수 있으며, 오염원이 염소와 관련성이 있을 것으로 판단된다. ▶ 질소-산소 및 염소 동위원소 분석 결과 오염의 원인은 농가에서 살포된 비료 및 분뇨 등과는 연관이 없을 것으로 추정되며, 브롬-요오드 분석 결과 과업지역 인근의 지하수 오염은 염수기원(소금)의 영향으로 판단된다. 또한 작물 내 미량원소 분석 결과 오염된 시료의 염소농도가 높은 값을 나타내고 있어서, 염소이온이 식물 피해의 직접적인 원인으로 판단된다.

In addition, based on the results of the groundwater modeling analysis, the area where salt ion concentration is distributed more than 250§¯/liter is urbanized to the extent of impact on groundwater pollution as follows, and the land in this case seems to be included within the scope of impact on groundwater pollution.

A person shall be appointed.

7) On October 18, 2015, some other persons who operated farmland in the north of the horse park of this case among the flower complexes in the vicinity of the horse park of this case filed a lawsuit against the defendant to confirm the existence of an obligation against the defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2016Gahap506972 against the defendant, and the defendant filed a lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation against them, and the above applicant for adjudication also filed a counterclaim for the claim of damages (2016Gahap755). On October 18, 2018, the above court sentenced the defendant to a judgment that recognized the defendant's liability for damages (the appellate court's appeal is continuing to be Seoul High Court 2018Na206824, 2068231, 206828248).

(2) Limitation of liability

(A) Even if a harmful act and the factors on the part of the victim are concurrent to cause or expanded damage, if compensating the perpetrator for the entire damage is contrary to the principle of fairness even if it is irrelevant to the cause on the part of the victim, the court may take into account the factors on the part of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage by analogying the amount of compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da12270, Jul. 24, 1998; 2006Da19603, Nov. 30, 2007; 2016Da35802, Sept. 13, 2018).

(B) In light of the following circumstances, the above-mentioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability for damages incurred to the Plaintiffs by spraying salt on the racing of the Horse Park in this case to 60%.

1) In around 2012, the Plaintiffs filed multiple civil complaints against the Defendant, including filing an application for environmental dispute mediation with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee from around 2008, on the following grounds: (a) after planting blue seedlings in the instant farm, the Plaintiffs caused damage, such as withering the trees to death without properly growing or breaking them; (b) among the flower complexes around the instant horse park, some of the flower farmers and fluor farmers around the north of the instant horse park, such as the instant land, filed a multiple civil complaints against the Defendant, which had already been filed in 208; and (c) it seems that the Plaintiffs might have known that salt used in the instant horse park could have caused the above damage; (d) however, the Plaintiffs continued to expand the cultivation of blue tree without taking any specific confirmation or measures to prevent damage.

2) The excessively high level of salt ion concentration of groundwater in the soil of the instant land appears to have been mainly caused by the salt scattered in the horse park of this case. However, in addition, it seems that it had an impact on a certain degree, such as calcium, potassium, and other crops cultivated in the field of calcium, potassium, etc., which were scattered for snow on the roads, such as an urban accelerated roads, etc. around the instant land, on the winter-si, Gyeongcheon-si, which were scattered for snow on the roads, such as the calcium, calcium, and other crops in the vicinity of the instant land.

3) Not only the quality of groundwater, but also various factors such as soil, temperature, fertilizer, and blight and harmful insects have an impact on the growth and fruit of fruit water. However, if the plaintiffs were to kill most of them without proper growth or strawing, it seems that the salt portion flowing into the ground water from the horse park of this case was found that the salt portion flowing into the ground water from the horse park of this case did not go through the soil of the land of this case, and such other factors were also combined.

3. Scope of damages.

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs

The amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the plaintiffs' death of blue tree planted in the Agricultural Center of this case without properly growing or not, shall be KRW 19,200,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00

(2) Defendant

In order to recognize the damage of the plaintiffs, it should be specified in detail that the quantity and receipt of blub trees planted in the instant farm site and the degree of damage caused by death, such as death. Since there is a lack of evidence to prove such content, it is difficult to recognize the damage claimed by the plaintiffs.

B. Determination

(1) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the video of No. 3 and the Nonparty’s appraisal result.

(A) Around 2012, the Plaintiffs planted a blue tree nursery in a vinyl of approximately KRW 1,935 square meters among the instant land. However, the Plaintiffs seems to have de facto waived the cultivation and management of blue tree around the end of 2006, while they did not properly grow or have failed to do so.

(B) The Nonparty assessed that the scope and amount of the damage suffered by the Plaintiffs due to most of the blue trees planted on the instant land with proper growth or failure, and most of them were 71,416,00 won in total as shown in the attached Table 2 (i.e., KRW 19,20,000 in lost earnings in 2014 + KRW 29,520,000 in lost earnings in 2015 + KRW 18,096,000 in lost earnings in 2016 + KRW 4,60,000 in total for planting new blue seedlings.

(2) As long as the appraiser’s appraisal method is against the empirical rule or unreasonable, the appraiser’s appraisal method should be respected unless there is a remarkable error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da74560, Nov. 25, 2010; 2009Da84608, 84615, 84622, 84639, Jan. 12, 2012; 2014Da67720, Dec. 29, 2016).

In addition to the purport of Gap evidence No. 3’s video and oral argument, the appraisal method regarding the scope and amount of the plaintiffs’ damages assessed as above by the non-party is not deemed to have been significantly erroneous, such as contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable. Thus, the above appraisal content may be sufficiently reliable. However, the appraiser calculated the lost income by deeming it corresponding to 20a. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the size of timber planted on the land of this case is deemed to be 19.35a (1,935 square meters) (1,935 square meters) (18,583,213 won (=1,200,466 won (1a.a., expected revenue) 】 19.35a 】 80/10 (income forecast) 】 105 】 20505 】 16815 】 206515 】 1985 】 206515 205 】

(3) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs 20,771,857 won (=69,239,524 won + KRW 18,583,213 won + KRW 28,54,531 + KRW 17,501,780 + KRW 4,600 + 60/100 (the defendant's liability ratio) ¡¿ 1/2 (the damage ratio between the plaintiffs) ¡¿ 1/2 (the damage ratio between the plaintiffs) ¡¿ since the date when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on August 22, 2017 after the date when the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiffs was served, for a considerable period of time to resist the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay by 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from the next day to the day when the decision is rendered until the day when the payment is made.

4. Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiffs' claims within the scope of the above recognized amount.

[Attachment] List 1, List 2: Omitted

Judges Lee Young-chul