Fladr Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seol, Attorneys Seo-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Abandoned Automobile Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Park Gi-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 22, 2008

1. The defendant Oral Vehicle Co., Ltd. shall pay to the plaintiff 3,435,946,179 won with 5% per annum from July 25, 2006 to September 3, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Aeronautical Motor Vehicle Co., Ltd. and the defendant Pacific Co., Ltd.'s claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Abandoned Motor Co., Ltd. are borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder is borne by the Defendant Abandoned Motor Co., Ltd., and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Aethyl Co.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 9,760,472,140 won and 4,97,556,609 won from July 25, 2006 to 3,131,527,068 won with 5% per annum from January 29, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of claim of each of the above cases, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or evidence Nos. 1 through 60, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, each statement Nos. 3 and 1 through 7, the testimony of Non-party No. 3 and Non-party No. 1, the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the result of the appraiser No. 2's land appraisal conducted by the non-party No. 2, and the whole purport

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff, a company conducting a comprehensive construction business, etc., is a company that carries out the construction business, etc. of new 30 pieces of land such as Guro-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), etc. (hereinafter “the instant site”), and is a company that manufactures and sells automobiles, etc., and Defendant Mean Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Mean Automobile”) is a company that manufactures and sells steel, special steel, and manufactures and sells main products.

2) The entire area of the instant site is 35,01 square meters (the 32,244 square meters among them was owned by Defendant RA car and Nonparty ELD investment securities, and the 2,767 square meters was Si/Gun/Gu-owned land; hereinafter “the instant land” and “Si/Gun/Gu-owned land”). Each of the instant land is divided into 30,849 square meters and the 4,162 square meters for the land excluded from the business, and the project site may be further divided into 22,71 square meters and the 2,520 square meters of the site of the building site and the 5,618 square meters of the site of the road, and the Si/Gun-owned land shall be included in the project site (the present site excluded from the business is also divided into a park site, but the aforementioned division shall be maintained to distinguish it as seen below).

B. Change in ownership and use of the site of this case

1) Since around 1973, Korea Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. operated a main manufacturing factory on the instant site. From around 1982, from around 1982, it owned the instant trade site (the state-owned land is leased and used; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) On March 20, 1990, Korea Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. changed its trade name to Korea Agian Special Course Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Agian Special Course”), and on December 21, 1993, while it owned the instant trade site and operated a main water manufacturing factory, it sold 1/2 shares of each of the instant trade site to Defendant Agian Motor Vehicles and Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cgsan”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on December 30, 1993.

3) On August 27, 1993, the construction work of removing and reclaiming the above main product manufacturing plant from the Agro Special River of the Agro Special River of the Republic of Korea, and around the end of the end of the 1993, the construction work was performed after being awarded a contract for the construction work of car shipping sites, such as molding and asphalt concrete clothes on the site of the instant case. The underground facilities, such as underground tunnels of the instant site, such as underground tunnels, were removed only the above ground, buried waste such as waste in underground, and carried out mold and asphalt concrete covering work.

4) From July 1994, Defendant Abandoned Automobile used the instant site as a shipment site, and the share in the calculation and calculation was actually occupied and used by ELD Investment Securities Co., Ltd. purchased on June 28, 2002 through Korea Land Trust, via Korea Land Trust.

5) Meanwhile, on the other hand, the company reorganization procedure was initiated on June 1998 with respect to the technical special lectures, and the company approved the reorganization plan on February 199, and on March 12, 2004, the company changed its trade name on March 12, 2004.

C. Acquisition of the Plaintiff’s site of this case

1) On September 29, 1997, in the vicinity of subway 2 lines, including the instant site, a detailed urban planning plan was formulated with respect to the special design complex around the new forest station within the district unit planning zone as well as the area determined and announced as a district unit planning zone on September 29, 1997.

2) On July 9, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) formulated a plan to newly construct and sell a new erotetea, a complex electronic distribution center; (b) purchased 1/2 of the instant land from Nonparty ELD securities on December 17, 2001; and (c) purchased 1/2 of the remainder of the instant 1/2 of the instant land from Defendant Malaysia on February 15, 2002 (24,50,000,000, the sales price agreed with Defendant Malaysia) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on July 9, 2002 (the instant land was trusted to the Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd on October 11, 2004, and the trust relation was terminated on January 18, 2008, the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration was completed as of the date of closing the argument).

3) On February 25, 2005, the Plaintiff obtained permission from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City to construct the 7th underground floor and 26th ground floor size, and commenced on March 25, 2005.

D. Treatment of contaminated soil, waste, etc. of the site of this case

1) Inspection of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation

A) In around 2004, the Plaintiff requested the Korea Agricultural & Rural Community Corporation to assess the soil environment of the instant project site.

B) The Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation investigated on the first-stage basis from October 1, 2004 to November 4, 2004, and confirmed the existence of petroleum total hydrocarbon (TPH), smoke (Zn), nitroz (Ni), nitrous (F), and lead (Pb).

C) Accordingly, the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation conducted a 2-level precision investigation from November 2, 2004 to February 9, 2005. The Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation prepared a report to the effect that the soil of the instant project site was contaminated by oil, smoke, nitroel, hydrogen, oil, etc., and construction waste, including waste concrete, was buried underground, and submitted to the Plaintiff.

(ii) the existence of soil contamination and waste;

A) On March 24, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction works with Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Construction”) and with respect to new construction works of new tegrat tegrat tegrat tegrat tegrat (the gold Industry Co., Ltd. became a joint contractor on May 30, 2005). The above contract included an agreement on the disposal of waste asphalts, waste concrete, general wastes, contaminated soil, etc. which may be taken out in the process of civil engineering works (Article 6 of the General specifications of the above contract and the part of civil engineering works).

B) During the construction process for the site of a building and the investigation into the road, park, and the site excluded from the project of an appraiser under the above contract for Construction, it was found that there was soil contaminated by contaminants under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, such as hydrogen, smoke, nitrok, mercury, petroleum gas, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “pollution soil”), from the ground surface within a range of six meters below the ground surface. From the ground surface, it was found that specific sculptures, waste slate, waste asphalt, waste asphalt, waste dust, brick, plastic, plastic, and brick, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “wastes, etc.”) were artificially buried in most of the instant site, including that the thickness of about 20 cm and 40 cm thick, which constitutes the floor of the main water plant, exists in the vicinity of the underground 1m below the ground surface.

(3) Treatment of polluted soil, wastes, etc.

A) Treatment of contaminated soil and waste on a building site

Treatment Construction was awarded a subcontract for 22,711 square meters of the building site to the Habnb C&C (ju), including the soil contamination and waste disposal work on underground, and the said Hab C&C had re-subcontracted the soil contamination and waste disposal work on soil during the construction.

B) Treatment of contaminated soil and waste in the area of 4,749 square meters among road sites and park sites

The Plaintiff: (a) on January 25, 2007, with respect to the 2,520 square meters of a road site on January 25, 2007, on March 6, 2007, the Plaintiff contracted the construction of soil (including soil and waste disposal) with respect to the 4,749 square meters of a park site on March 6, 2007, including 5,618 square meters of a park site; and (b) Jae C&C subcontracted the construction of the disposal of soil and waste, etc. to the (ju) Dongpter, etc. to treat contaminated soil and waste.

C) Treatment of soil and waste in a part of 869 square meters in a park site

On September 20, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) contracted the construction of soil, including soil contamination and waste disposal, with respect to the remaining 869 square meters of land in the park site; and (b) Jae C&C subcontracted the construction of soil contamination and waste disposal, etc. to (c) Dongppp, etc. during the construction of soil to treat soil and waste.

D) The volume of contaminated soil, waste, etc. disposed of as above is as stated in the “Quantities” of each site in the separate sheet for each annexed sheet. The unit disposal cost per one cubic meter agreed between the Plaintiff, Daewoo Construction, and Jae-S&C is as stated in the same Table and the “unit disposal cost per 1 cubic meter” of the same Table. The direct construction cost based on the above volume and disposal unit cost is as stated in each pertinent site, and the direct construction cost is as stated in the “direct construction cost” of each pertinent site, and the indirect construction cost, such as indirect labor cost, various insurance premium, safety management cost, and other expenses, are as stated in the “indirect construction cost” column of each pertinent site.

E) Until July 24, 2006, the Plaintiff paid to Daewoo Construction KRW 5,503,938,938 as the price for the disposal of soil and waste, etc. in the building site. By October 26, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,205,948,716 as the price for the disposal of soil and waste, etc. in the road site, and until January 23, 2008, paid KRW 2,013,05,180 as the price for the above construction of KRW 4,749 square meters in the park site, and until January 28, 2008, KRW 365,079,109 as the price for the above construction of KRW 869 square meters in the park site as the price for the disposal of soil and waste.

(iv) expenses for anticipated disposal of land excluded from the project, such as soil and waste disposal;

On the other hand, the expected volume and unit price of the 4,162 square meters of the project exclusion site are as indicated in the corresponding column of the detailed sheet for each attached site, and the expected cost for the disposal thereof is KRW 1,791,227,445.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether the Defendants’ tort liability is recognized

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable for damages as joint tortfeasor because the plaintiff, the present owner of the land for the sale of this case, caused damages equivalent to the disposal costs by disposing of the above contaminated soil and waste through reclaiming waste in the process of the removal of the main product plant and the construction of the shipping yard of the automobile, using the site for this case as the main product plant and the shipping yard of the automobile, and caused the soil of the site for this case to be contaminated by oil, etc., and the removal of the main product plant and the construction of the shipping yard of the automobile. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable for compensation for damages as joint tortfeasor [the plaintiff is understood as the time when the tort is completed, that is, the time when the claim for damages due to the tort occurred at the point of disposal of the above contaminated soil and waste, etc.]. If the plaintiff intended that the claim for damages occurred at the time of the discharge of pollutants or the disposal of the waste (the time before July 194, 19, which began to be used as the shipping yard of the automobile at the latest time).

On the other hand, the plaintiff is responsible for the defendants' liability. ① When the damages have occurred due to the soil contamination under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, the person causing the pollution shall compensate for the damages and purify the contaminated soil (Article 10-3 (1) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act (amended by Act No. 7459 of March 31, 2005). ② Under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the person who causes the environmental pollution due to his act or business activity shall bear the expenses for the prevention of the pollution, the restoration of the polluted environment, and the remedy for damages (amended by Act No. 6097 of December 31, 199). ② Under the Wastes Control Act, the plaintiff bears the strict liability when the damages have occurred due to the environmental pollution arising from the workplace, etc. (Article 7 (1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy (amended by Act No. 6097 of December 31, 199). ③ Under the Wastes Control Act, the enterpriser who discharges the wastes within his workplace shall properly dispose of all the wastes generated from his workplace (Article 3814(206.

2) Determination

First of all, the above provisions of the Wastes Control Act provide administrative duties, and it cannot be immediately acknowledged civil liability from the above provisions. In the Soil Environment Conservation Act and the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the above provisions do not recognize liability separate from the tort liability pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act (hereinafter “general tort liability”), but rather recognize the offender’s strict liability. Therefore, it is the premise for the Defendants to establish general tort liability against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, as stipulated in Article 750 of the Civil Act, "any person who causes damage to another person due to an intentional or negligent act shall be liable to compensate for such damage." Since tort means an act of causing damage to another person by infringing legal interests, such as another person's property, etc., on the land owned by him/her, the act of contaminateding the soil or reclaiming wastes, etc., is not against a third party as an act against himself/herself, and it does not constitute tort. Further, it cannot be deemed that the act by the actor itself does not cause any damage to the person who acquired the ownership of the land of this case, as a matter of course, on the ground that the act does not constitute a tort against the person who acquired the ownership of the land of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da16460 delivered on January 11, 202).

Therefore, even if Defendant Sene or Defendant Malaysia contaminated the instant land, which was owned by it, or buried waste, etc. on the instant land, it cannot be deemed as tort against the Plaintiff, who acquired ownership of the instant land thereafter.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking damages against the defendants as joint tortfeasor is without merit.

B. Whether to recognize the warranty liability or default liability of Defendant Abandoned Motor Vehicle

1) Whether to recognize warranty liability

A) The Plaintiff asserts that when there is a defect in the object of sale, the seller shall compensate for the loss (Article 580 of the Civil Act), and that the seller is liable to compensate for the loss because of the defect in the site of this case, the seller’s act of reclaiming heavy soil and waste, etc., such as this case, constitutes a defect in the site of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff, the seller, is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the loss equivalent to

B) As to this, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle asserted that the sales of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle are sales between merchants and did not immediately perform the duty of inspection and the duty of notification of defects pursuant to Article 69(1) of the Commercial Act, and that the Plaintiff, who did not discover and notify defects within six months, could not claim damages due to defects against the Defendant. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged that each of the above Defendant company cannot claim damages due to defects. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff did not discover and notify defects immediately or within six months after receiving the land for the instant case from the said Defendant. Accordingly, the above Defendant’s assertion is with merit, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any further need.

2) Whether to recognize liability for nonperformance

A) The Plaintiff asserts that, in the sales contract, the seller is obligated to deliver a normal article without any defect. As in the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the delivery of a site where a large quantity of contaminated soil and waste, etc. were buried is a complete performance of the seller’s duty. Thus, Defendant Ba Automobile is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the cost of disposal of the above contaminated soil, etc.

B) In light of the following circumstances, from around 197, the Plaintiff was planned to develop a lot of the instant site, including the instant site for the instant transaction from around 1997. The Plaintiff is a company that conducts the business of constructing and selling a new temart shop around the river basin of subway 2, which is a company that conducts a comprehensive construction business, etc., and purchased the instant site for the instant construction and sale of a new temart. The Plaintiff appears to have been aware of such circumstances, and the sales price of the instant sale site was KRW 24,50,000, and the sales price of the instant sale site was KRW 24,50,000, and the sum of expenses incurred in disposing of the contaminated soil and waste of the instant site and expenses to be incurred in disposing of them is up to KRW 10,879,199,38 (excluding value-added tax). Therefore, Defendant A, barring special circumstances, is liable for nonperformance of obligation as a seller.

C) As to this, the above defendant agreed on the terms and conditions of the contract, such as the early special lecture and removal, to purchase the land of this case, and the above defendant did not participate in the process of removal and reclamation of the main plant to resolve the shortage of funds in the calculation, and since the above defendant's use was determined to be used and the removal and reclamation was completed at the time of the delivery of the above site, it was not known at all that the above land was contaminated or the waste was buried. Therefore, it was argued that the above defendant did not have any cause for the above default. Therefore, considering the above defendant's assertion that there was no cause for the above default, considering the relation between the above defendants, the relation between the above defendants, and the removal of the main plant, the time of the removal of the main plant, and the testimony of the witness non-party 1, it is insufficient to recognize that the above defendant's testimony does not have any cause related to the sale of the defective site to the defendant Eul. Thus, this part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

D) In addition, the above defendant asserts that the above defendant cannot bear the costs of disposal of contaminated soil and waste, etc. under the pretext of default, since he/she agreed to bear all waste disposal costs incurred in the instant land for business promotion even though he/she was fully notified of the possibility of contamination, etc. of the instant sale site at the time of negotiations with the above defendant for concluding the instant sales contract.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony by non-party 1, the plaintiff and defendant defendant defendant A entered into a sales contract for the land of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, that "the profits and expenses incurred with respect to the subject matter of this sale shall be based on the payment date of balance and the date first arrived, and the subsequent transfer shall be reverted to the plaintiff (Article 5 of the sales contract)." However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff agreed to bear the disposal expenses of all soil and waste, etc. likely to occur in the future with the defendant A, at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, as seen earlier, ① the site of this case was used as the shipping yard, most of the asphalt concrete was used as the site of this case. ② The Plaintiff appears to have difficulty predicting the possibility of reclaiming wastes, etc. in the process of the soil contamination possibility of the site of this case, the removal of main plant, and the construction of the shipping yard for automobiles. ③ Pollution soil and waste are different according to their types, and the cost of removal according to their scale may be at least KRW 24,50,000,00, and in this case, the purchase price was at KRW 24,50,000, and the total expenses to be incurred for the disposal of soil and waste of this case and the expenses to be incurred for the disposal of soil and waste of this case would amount to KRW 10,879,199,38. In view of the fact that Article 5 of the above sales contract does not mean all soil contamination and waste disposal costs likely to occur in the future, but it is reasonable to deem the possibility of the occurrence of the sale price of this case.

E) Lastly, the above defendant asserts that the plaintiff's right to claim damages has expired upon expiration of the three-year extinctive prescription, but the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages due to non-performance of obligation shall be ten years. Therefore, this part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit without further review.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, Defendant AV is a seller of 1/2 shares out of the instant sale site, and is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the expenses incurred in disposing of contaminated soil and waste, etc. in the instant sale site, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Calculation of damages

1) Calculation Criteria

As seen earlier, Defendant Aeronautical Motor is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by selling the defective site of this case, and the damages therefrom shall be deemed as the expenses which deducts the basic construction cost (i.e., excavation, removal, transportation, etc.) in the case of non-pollution soil and waste soil from the expenses incurred in removing the contaminated soil and waste, etc. (the Plaintiff should have completed the basic construction work for excavating and removing the same quantity of earth and sand even if the contaminated soil and waste soil were not buried in the real estate of this case). However, the Plaintiff should have completed the construction work for excavating and removing the same quantity of soil and sand even if the contaminated soil and waste soil were not buried in the real estate of this case. Accordingly, it is claimed by deducting the above basic construction cost from the contract amount of this case by deeming that the basic construction cost had not been incurred

However, from the above costs, the expenses related to the portion other than the land of this case, that is, the part related to the Si/Gun/Gu-owned land shall be excluded.

(ii)the disposal costs;

The direct and indirect construction costs related to the unit cost and the building site for each cubic meter of the contaminated soil, waste, etc. in this case are as stated in the separate sheet of the detailed construction cost for each applicable column. The direct and indirect construction cost for each of the above sites calculated by multiplying the site for a road, the site for a park, and the site excluded from a project by the above disposal unit cost by the ratio [249,079,938 won (indirect construction cost)/5,254,859,000 won (direct construction cost) to the direct and indirect construction cost for each of the above building sites (direct construction cost) to the direct construction cost for each of the above disposal unit cost, and the same ratio related to the basic construction as above is as stated in the corresponding column of each corresponding column, and the aggregate disposal cost is as stated in each corresponding column of each corresponding column.

The Plaintiff asserted that the unit price for disposal of the same site as at the time of construction of the road and park is increased compared to the point of time of the construction of the site for the building, such as soil and waste disposal, and claimed compensation for damages as at the cost of construction of the site except for the above building site. However, the damages equivalent to the increased cost due to the increase in the unit price for disposal as above shall be deemed as “damage due to special circumstances” under Article 393(2) of the Civil Act. Since there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Amb knew or could have known such circumstance, the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages exceeding the unit price for construction of the building site [the cost of disposal of soil and waste] shall not be justified (the result of the investigation of the project site of this case, the result of construction of the building site of this case, and the result of construction of the building site of this case shall be more than one year from the construction site of the building site of this case, and its conclusion shall not be deemed to be reasonable in light of the above part.

In addition, each construction cost of this case consists of direct and indirect construction cost. The indirect construction cost is a certain percentage of direct and indirect construction cost, and the method of calculating it depends on the contracting party. In this case, the ratio of pollution soil, etc. ( approximately 4.7%) applied between the Plaintiff and Daewoo Construction and about 11.3% ( approximately 14.0%), and the ratio of pollution soil, etc. ( approximately 14.7%; hereinafter “4.7%,” “1.3%,” “14%,” and “14%” as alleged by the Plaintiff are generally different. In calculating the indirect construction cost of the remaining site except for the building site, the Plaintiff complies with the ratio that is applied accurately in calculating the indirect construction cost of the remaining site except for the building site. However, as seen earlier, in this case, it is reasonable to uniformly apply the "pollution soil and waste disposal cost, etc.,” and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the basic construction cost should be applied to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff voluntarily asserts.

(iii) basic construction costs to be deducted;

Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the pleadings as a whole, the unit cost for the basic construction for the excavation and removal of soil and sand, such as soil contamination and waste soil on a building site, can be acknowledged as identical to the statement in the detailed statement in the separate sheet [the basic construction cost to be deducted] column for building site]. The direct construction cost and indirect construction cost may be claimed directly by using the above unit cost in relation to the remainder of the building site. Each direct construction cost may be calculated indirectly by multiplying the ratio of indirect construction cost to the direct construction cost of the part of the building site [the indirect construction cost] to the direct construction cost [the ratio of indirect construction cost to the part of the building site] [the basic construction cost to be deducted]. Each of the above expenses shall be as stated in the separate sheet [the pertinent basic construction cost].

The cost of deducting the above basic construction cost is as stated in the above table (the amount after deduction). 4,97,56,609 won in the case of a building site, 505,375,885 won in the case of a road site, 1,077,177,623 won in the case of a park site (94,294,787 won + 132,82,836 won in the case of a building site excluded from a project, 83,323,398 won in the case of a building site.

4) Exclusion from City/Do-owned land portion

In full view of the contents of evidence No. 58, appraiser No. 2's land appraisal result, and the purport of the argument as to the non-party No. 58's land appraisal result as to the non-party No. 2's land appraisal result, the quantity and unit price of contaminated soil and waste earth and sand taken out in the part of Si/Gun/Gu among the project site of this case is as stated in the attached Table of the state-owned land [the cost of soil contamination and waste disposal construction] (the same unit price as the building site should be applied to the road and park site], and the cost of indirect construction for the disposal of the road and park site among the state-owned land can be calculated by multiplying the relevant construction cost by the above "ratio of soil contamination, etc."). The direct construction cost for the disposal of soil and sand such as the contaminated soil and waste soil and the construction cost directly for the disposal of the land of this case can be calculated by multiplying each of the above construction cost by the ratio of the above construction cost. The cost related to the state-owned land in the corresponding section].

Expenses, except for Si/Gun-owned land, are 4,707,516,042 won (4,97,556,609 won - 290,040,567 won) in the case of a building site and park site, 1,399,125,534 won in the case of a road site and park site (505,375,885 won + 1,077,177,623 won - 183,427,974 won in the case of a building site.

5) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant Air Transport shall be KRW 4,707,516,042 in relation to the building site; KRW 1,399,125,534 in relation to the road and park site; KRW 833,323,323 in relation to the road and park site; KRW 6,939,964,974 in total ( KRW 4,707,516,042 in + + KRW 1,399,125,534 in + KRW 83,323,398 in addition to KRW 1/2 in relation to the external area of the project.

B. Determination on the assertion of Defendant Abandoned Motor Vehicle

1) Determination on the assertion of mutual aid

A) The above Defendant asserted that the expenses related to the removal of asphalt concrete on the ground surface should be borne by the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and thus, the part corresponding to the disposal expenses should be excluded from the recognized amount of damages. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Abandoned Automobile agreed as above at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, as seen earlier, shall be deducted from the part corresponding to the disposal expenses of scrapped concrete among the recognized damages.

The disposal cost to be deducted is an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the disposal cost of waste asphalt containers of this case. The fact that the area of the sale site of this case is 32,244 square meters is as seen earlier. In full view of the record on evidence No. 24, appraiser Nos. 24, appraisal result of appraiser No. 2 of this court's land appraisal, most of the site of this case is covered with asphalt concrete, and its average thickness is 0.063 square meters. The disposal cost of waste concrete of this case is identical; waste concrete of this case is 0.063 square meters; waste concrete of this case is 32,000 won per 360,000,000 unit cost of waste concrete of this case; 360,000 won, 360,000 won, 369,000 won, 20,969,000 won, 20,96369,206,000 cubic meters or less.

B) The above defendant asserts that the disposal costs should also be excluded from the amount of losses because there is no obligation to dispose of the waste soil and stones in accordance with the relevant regulations. However, according to the Act on the Promotion of Construction Wastes Recycling, the ordering person shall include the expenses incurred in the separation, discharge, storage, disposal, recycling, etc. of construction waste generated from the construction in question (Article 5(2) of the above Act). Here, construction waste includes the soil, sand, gravel, etc. (excluding the soil, sand, gravel generated from the construction work or from the interim disposal of construction waste) (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the above Act, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 2 subparag. 16 of the same Decree, and Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act before and after the time when the plaintiff disposed of the waste soil, waste, etc. in this case, but it does not change the meaning of the "waste soil and stone," and the plaintiff as the plaintiff cannot spend the expenses incurred in the disposal of the waste in this case.

2) Determination as to the assertion on the computation of volume

On the other hand, the above defendant asserts that ① the quantity of the plaintiff's assertion taken out is likely to include the quantity unrelated to soil contamination or waste, ② pollution soil of the site of the building and the site of the road and the site of the park, and the proportion of waste soil is different from each other. ③ Since the unit price for the disposal of contaminated soil and the waste soil is considerably different from the unit price for the disposal of contaminated soil and the waste soil, it is likely that the removal and disposal could not be carried out and disposed of accurately, the plaintiff's calculation of the quantity of the contaminated soil

However, the basic construction cost for excavating and removing soil and sand such as contaminated soil and waste soil and waste disposal cost were deducted from the amount of damages as seen earlier. The result of the fact-finding and appraiser non-party 2's land appraisal conducted by this court and the overall purport of the arguments in light of the following circumstances, namely, ① the quantity calculated from the basic investigation conducted by the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and the results of the fact-finding conducted by the non-party 2, and the quantity actually taken out through the disposal of contaminated soil and waste in this case, are not significantly different from the quantity actually taken out through the disposal of contaminated soil and waste in this case; ② The difference between contaminated soil and waste soil is based on the characteristics of the site (type, etc. of the main factory facility). ③ The removal of contaminated soil and waste is basically based on the soil contamination guidance prepared by the detailed investigation into soil contamination, and it is reasonable to assess the quantity of contaminated soil and waste in the event of excavation. Therefore, this part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

3) Determination as to the assertion on the unit price to be handled

In addition, the above defendant asserts that the difference between the plaintiff's cost calculation amount and the plaintiff's actual contract amount is obvious, and that the unit price for treatment agreed with the treatment construction in relation to the contaminated soil and waste disposal work is different from the unit price for treatment agreed with the treatment construction in relation to the treatment construction work.

In light of the above facts, the testimony of Non-party 3, the appraiser's land appraisal result of Non-party 2, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the argument as a result of the fact inquiry into Non-party 2 of this court, i.e., the plaintiff and Non-party 2: ① differently from the time when the plaintiff and Non-party 2 entered into a contract on the site of a building, the plaintiff and Non-party 3 C&C newly established on June 30, 2005 under the provisions on the requirements for registration of soil purification business (Article 17-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Soil Environment Conservation Act) newly established on June 30, 205 to install purification facilities, equipment, technical personnel, and purification facilities; ② appraiser's unit price for treatment of contaminated soil and waste has increased due to his capacity to install the site for purification facilities, and ② appraiser's unit price for treatment of contaminated soil by nature of the Korea Construction Resources Association's waste, the disposal cost of the contaminated soil by the Korea Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the cost of the project.

4) Determination on the assertion of comparative negligence

Finally, since the above defendant has contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damages of this case, the plaintiff's negligence should be considered for the calculation of the damages of this case. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff failed to fulfill his duty of due care at the time of entering into the contract of this case, or failed to properly dispose of contaminated soil and waste, etc., so the above defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Thus, the defendant Malaysia is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,435,946,179 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 3, 2008, which is the date of the judgment of this case, to September 3, 2008, which is the date of the decision of this case, and from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff is claiming that the plaintiff calculated the initial date of each damages for delay by dividing the disposal costs of building sites and the disposal costs of road and park site, but the plaintiff's liability for default arises from a single sale contract, as long as it is attributable to the same trade contract).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Malaysia is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Malaysia is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Dog-ro (Presiding Judge)