logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.06.20 2016가단1759
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C: (a) from March 25, 2015, 200 won to 400,000 female members indicated in the list of designated persons listed in the attached Form D.

Reasons

1. Determination on a claim for damages due to scattering dust

A. Scattering dust discharged from the Defendant’s place of business of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) did not clean the Plaintiff’s house on the rooftop and mast, thereby incurring considerable damage to the expenses incurred in restoring it to its original state.

B. Generally, the burden of proving the perpetrator’s harmful act, the occurrence of the victim’s damage, and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the occurrence of the victim’s damage is borne by the claimant.

However, in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damage caused by air pollution or water pollution, requiring the victim to provide a scientific strict proof of the existence of a factual causal relationship may result in the refusal of judicial relief due to pollution. On the other hand, since technical and economic aspects are much more easy to investigate the cause of the perpetrator rather than the victim, and since there is a concern that the perpetrator may conceal the cause of damage, if the perpetrator discharges any harmful substance and caused damage by arrival of the damaged object, the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage suffered by the victim can be acknowledged unless the perpetrator proves that the damage was not caused by the occurrence of the damage.

However, in this case, at least the perpetrator discharges harmful substances, the degree of harm exceeds the generally accepted limit in the social life, the fact that it reaches the damaged object, the burden of proof on the fact that the victim suffered damage is still borne by the victim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da111661 Decided October 11, 2013). Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) had been engaged in the gathering of earth and sand from around 2009 to YE, and Defendant C had been engaged in the gathering of earth and sand from around 2009.

arrow