2012 Gohap 14680. Confirmation of the existence of an obligation

2012C. 36222 (Counterclaim) Compensation for damages

◇ 주식회사의 소송수계인 ② 주식회사

This representative director**

Law Firm (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC)

1.Tan○○

2. ○○.

3. Forwarding ○○.

4

5. Stambed ○.

6 ○○

7. Kim○-○

8. Jindo;

9. Lighting-○;

10. Subdivision ○○

11. Dogjin;

12. Kim Jong-chul

13. Ma○○

14. Dominium ○

15. Dolle Park;

16. Kim △△△

17. Ansan; and

18. Kim Il-chul

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm LLC, Attorney Yellow-san, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

November 13, 2013

December 18, 2013

1. It is confirmed that there is no liability for damages against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant), ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, Songsan, and ○○○, due to substances emitted from the factory located in Ri 289.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated in the sum of the “amount of the cited amount” in the attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), ○○○, Kim○○, Jin○, Cho Man-○, Cho Man-○, Chojin-○, Jin-jin, Jin-jin, Jin-jin, Kim Il-jin, Kim Il-young, △△, △△△, Kim △△, △△△, and Kim Il-young, and each of the above amounts.

12. From December 18, 2013 to December 18, 2013, 5% interest per annum and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s main claim against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) ○○○, Kim○, Jin○, Jin○, Cho○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Jin○, Jinjin, △△, Ma○, Matri, Ma○, Ma○○, Matri, △△△, Kim Jong, Kim △△, △△△, and Kim Il, the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim, and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim, ○○, ○○, O○, ○, Song○, Ma○, Ma○, Mari, Mari, Mari, and Mari, and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim, ○○, Kim○, Jin○, Jin○, ○, Ma○, Mari, Kim△, △△, △△△, and Kim Il-ri

4. Of the litigation costs incurred by the principal lawsuit, the part incurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and Gab○○○, is borne by the said Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff). The part incurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant). Of the litigation costs incurred by the counterclaim, the part incurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ○, ○, ○, ○, Song○, ○, and Gab○○ is borne by the said Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2/5 of the part arising between the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the remaining Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are each borne by Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder by the said Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Main Office

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff 1) * City* * Myeon* * L * L 289) discharged from the factory located in Ri 289

The Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) due to material shall exist.

under this subsection, it is confirmed that the insured depository institution has not re-issued.

Counterclaim

[Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1 [Attachment 1]]]] to the Defendants

From December 23, 2011, each of the above amounts and each of the above amounts stated in "the sum of the claimed amounts"

5% per annum and from the following day to the date of service of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim

shall pay 20% interest per annum to each of the 20% interest rates.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

원고 ( 2013. 10 2. 주식회사에서 ◆◆◆ 주식회사로 그 상호가 변경되면서 같은 날 ◆◆◆ 주식회사와 오 주식회사로 분할되었고, 신설법인인

○ Co., Ltd. succeeded to the rights and obligations of the existing nive stock company. hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) was established on April 26, 1957 for the purpose of cement manufacturing and sales, etc. * * * * * * * * * * * 289 on the ground of 289, and a cement plant (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff factory”) was produced in the above factory up to the day.

From around 1968 to 1968, Defendant ○○○, ○○○, Ga○○○, Do○○○, Do○○○, Do○○○, Do○○○, Do○○○, Kim △△, and Balan, Defendant Kim ○, respectively, from around 1983 to around 1978, and from around 197 to around 1997, Defendant Jin Do○, and from around 1968 to around 1997, Defendant Jin Kim Jong-si, from around 1968 to around 198, and from around 198 to from around 1988 to around 1987 and from around 1987 to from around 1971 to around 1971 to ** * at Myeon.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport died on July 9, 2011, and the heir, who is the wife, is the defendant O○○ and his children, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

B. Factory and facilities of the Plaintiff’s factory and facilities, the current status of support for development funds, etc.

The plaintiff factory started to operate around December 1965, and around January 2003, the air pollution prevention facilities were replaced with a high processing efficiency at the existing electricity conditioning facilities. A chimney tele-moning system (Tle - Monitor Sym, hereinafter “Tms”) that automatically measure the concentration of gas emissions in the ele - Monitor Sym, emission volume such as dust, compliance with the permissible emission levels, and the proper operation of preventive facilities are automatically managed.

At present, in order to suppress dust generation on the factory and its surrounding roads, the Plaintiff is operating 2 tram cleaning vehicles, 2 air-conditioning vehicles, 3 automatic cleaning facilities and 2 water-saving vehicles at all times. 2) Support for development funds, etc.

From 1977 to 200 won, the Plaintiff paid approximately KRW 2,679,00,000 for the neighboring areas of the Plaintiff’s factory, and apart from this, from 1988 to 198, the Plaintiff paid KRW 187, 440,00 in total as subsidies for roof improvement in the area*** * * 187, 440,000.

(c) A cement manufacturing process and a powder manufacturing process;

In order to manufacture cement, the Plaintiff first mined tin in the tin mine, melting it, and then transported the mix (e.g. 1) through a consortium with which the shielding facility is installed to the Plaintiff’s factory (e.g. 1). If the mixed mix reaches the Plaintiff’s factory, the Plaintiff shall, after combining mix 5% of mix, 2% of mix, and mix mix 2% of mix with a raw material mix not more than 100cm, store it in the mix (e.g., softened mar, large mar repository) as mix (ii).

U.S. (P.C.) Union member fees which were minated were ruptured from a heating machine to 900C, and they became a Clinker (Clinker) semi-finished product of Clinker (Clinker) through a high temperature of 1,50C from a supper to the highest temperature of 1,50C.This coolant is stored in an exclusive use (Clinker of the same rupture), which is completed after adding part of the tin and reverververization (C. of the same rupture), and the cement completed is stored in a large sand, and is shipped (4 processes of the rupture).

[Attachment 1] 2) The principal ingredients of cement cement production process include about 1% or more of siO, siO, and simulative oxide (determinedly simulated sa). If tin is heated, simulium is combined with CaO to form a new compound called calcium calcium (CaO - SiO, and siO). The dust of the above calcium can be discharged in the cement manufacturing process, but it does not occur from the calcium process that is a new compound by heating the raw materials.

The plaintiff factory uses smoke, coke, heavy oil and recycling fuels, waste recycling auxiliary fuels, etc. as fuel in the production process of products, and causes nitrogen oxides and dust, which are pollutants emitted from the burning of fuels and wastes, in the nature of hydrogen.

The average amount of dust emission from April 1993 to October 1999 by the Plaintiff’s factory is 15.1mg/M. The amount of nitrogen oxides (Nx) and dust emission from April 2009 to December 201 are as follows. The amount of dust emission from April 201 to October 201 of the same year is 1.9mg/M.

Standard: NOx - Pm, dust - mg/ Sm permissible emission levels: NOx (NOx 330 pmm, dust 50m/ Sm.)

Meanwhile, from 1989 to 1989, the Plaintiff was not subject to an administrative disposition on the ground that it violated the permissible standards regarding dust management in the Plaintiff’s factory from 1989 to 200.

라. 원고 공장의 분진 도달1 ) 원고 공장을 중심으로, * * 시 * * 면 중 * * 리는 남쪽과 서쪽 및 북쪽에, ▦▦리는 북동쪽에 각 위치하고 있고, 원고 공장의 주변의 바람장미는 다음 [ 표 2 ] 와 같아 주 풍향은 남풍 또는 북동풍으로 평균 풍속은 남풍 3. 7m / s, 북동풍 1. 62m / s이다 .

The maximum density and distance of dust emitted from the Plaintiff’s factory at the time of 1993 through 1999, 15.1g/ Sm', 1.9 on January 9, 2010 as follows: ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 200-762 m2 m2, 2010-25-9 m25-9 m20, 2010, 200-50 m2) of the average dust emission density of the Plaintiff’s factory:

[Attachment 3]

E. Around 2010, the National Institute of Environmental Research conducted a health examination of residents in the area adjacent to cement factories in the area of Chungcheongbuk-do (hereinafter “The National Institute of Environmental Research”) on the residents’ health examination of the residents in the area of Chungcheongbuk-do, including the Dancheon-do and the Manyang-do (hereinafter “the health examination of this case”) in order to assess health impacts by investigating the respiratory health examination of residents in the area of cement factories, pollution exposure to heavy metals, and relevant health indicators.

2) The Chungcheongnam-do University established the adjacent area of the four cement factories, such as the Plaintiff’s factory located in the Incheon, Seoyang-gun, and the Mayang-gun factory located in the same Eup/Myeon, the Hanyang-gun factory located in the same Eup/Myeon, and the Sungyang-si factory located in the same Eup/Myeon **** Si * * * * Myeon, Hanyang-gun, the single-gun, the single-gun, the Hanyang-gun, the Hanyang-gun, the Hanyang-gun, the Hanyang-gun, the Mayang-gun (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “survey area”) and socioeconomic level and socioeconomic level ****** *3 km away from the Myeon to the south-si * Mayang-si, and the investigation was conducted by establishing a large tide.

3) In the above investigation,**** * * * Pois (the size of 10 fine dust) concentration of the side Pois was higher than 39.50 ¡§ 22.18g/metres 23.29 ¡§8.75g/metres, the concentration of PM and (the size of mois is 2.5§¯) concentration than 2.5§¯) * * * * * * * * * * (the size of mois 2.5§¯ cm) concentration in the large tide area (the size of mois 10§ 78.15§ 75 cm/ cubic meters). The statistical concentration of mois has been higher than 00§5000.00 m2.00 m2.00 m2) in the large tide area (* * 00 m2.00 m2.00 m2.

4)*** Si** as a result of the COD basin inspection for the participants in the face of the face of the Myeon and the large region, * Si* Si** Si* 5% of the COD disease rate among the participants in the investigation into the age of 40 or more, 8.5% of the face of the 40 or more years of age, * 8.5% of the large region, ple X-ray and CT, ** Si*** * 10 of the face participants was informed of pneumoconiosis, and one of the participants in the large region was informed of pneumoconiosis.

5) Around December 2010, the Chungcheongnam-do University reported that the environmental fine dust exposure ** City** * COPD and pneumoconiosis outbreak factors in the large area and the large area.

F. Environmental dispute arbitration Defendants (Defendant ○○○, Song ○○, and Songsan, the decedents of the decedents; hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants, without distinction before and after the death of Song-si,” when citing the entire Defendants, 128 residents nearby the Plaintiff’s plant including the Plaintiff, Hyundai Cement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Mocement”), and the Korea National Railroad Facility Corporation against the Plaintiff’s plant and Hyundai cement, which were operated by the Plaintiff’s plant and Hyundai C&S in the New C&S of the Korean Peninsula, the Korea Rail Network Authority * * * * Si * 100, asserting that the Plaintiff suffered property damage, such as noise, vibration, dust, solar damage, windows, solar heat, roof replacement, etc., due to the train operated by the MyeonJ, and sought the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee”) - 10 - 13 - 10 - 3 - 10 - 10 -

The Central Environmental Authority rejected an application for compensation filed against the above residents, the Korea Rail Network Authority, and the part on the application for compensation filed by the plaintiff due to noise and vibration generated in the plaintiff factory, on the ground that damage or causation is not recognized. However, according to the health examination of this case, the Defendants rendered a financial decision on December 22, 201 that the plaintiff shall pay each amount of money indicated in the "amount of damages" column to the defendants on December 22, 201, by recognizing that the health examination of this case is likely to cause damage or injury to the health of disability as stated in the following [Attachment 4].

[Attachment 4]

G. Pneumoconiosis and chronic pulmonary pneumoconiosis disease 1) refers to a disease whose main symptoms are a brupt change occurring in the lungs by inhaleing dusts. Medical symptoms refer to a disease whose main symptoms are a bruption change occurring in the lungs. Medical symptoms refer to a case where the density of a brush or non-established noise level is lower than the lower limit of Type 1 and where pneumoconiosis is suspected, the first, second, and third types of noise levels are high, large, and very large, respectively. (See Table 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Prevention of Pneumoconiosis and Protection, etc. of Workers from Pneumoconiosis).

Pneumoconiosis is usually exposed to dust, and more than 10 years have passed since it began to be exposed to dust, and even if it is not exposed to dust, pneumoconiosis is new or existing pneumoconiosis can be aggravated.

The causes of pneumoconiosis shall include Egrhesion, sulfur, coal, etc.

Of pneumoconiosis type C, 0/1, 1/1, 2/2, 3 and 3 shape C are indicated as 2/1, 23/3, 3/3, and pneumoconiosis symptoms are classified as minor disabilities depending on the degree of cardiopulmonary function. Height (F3) is limited to 55% or more, and the degree of pulmonary function is limited to 20% or more, such as a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 70% or more, and a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 45% or more, and a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 5% or more, such as a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 5% or more, and a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 1% or more, such as a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 45% or more, and a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 50% or more, and a person whose degree of pulmonary function is 5% or more, etc.

2) The COPD’s chronic pulmonary chronic pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary Elimination (hereinafter “COPD”) is a abnormal pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary Precaution. In general, male Smoking’s pulmonary pulmonary ZD’s pulmonary pulmonary ZD’s pulmonary ZD’s pulmonary x.

In general, COPD is divided into risk season, alarm, heavy weight, and very heavy weight according to the seriousness of symptoms. The risk season, heavy weight, and customer stress are generated. Waste function is normal; light is less than 0.7% of the Efforts (FEV)/ Efforts (FV) and less than 80% of the FEV forecast is less than 0.7%, heavy weight is less than 0.7%, and heavy weight is less than 0% and less than 0% of the FEV/FC is less than 0.7% and less than 80%, heavy weight is less than 0% and less than 0% of the HEV/VC is less than 0% and less than 30% of the pulmonary value is less than 50%, and less than 5% of the pulmonary value is less than 50% of the pulmonary value.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 25, 27, Eul evidence Nos. 37 and 41 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff operated the Plaintiff’s factory in compliance with all the air pollution standards stipulated in the relevant laws and regulations, and did not commit any unlawful act with regard to the discharge of environmental pollutants. In addition, the Plaintiff’s factory did not release harmful substances to human body, and the cause materials generated at the Plaintiff factory did not reach the area where the Defendants reside. Even if they reached the factory, there is no causal link between the damage of the Defendants and the dust discharged from the Plaintiff factory and the damage of the Defendants.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff did not cause damage to the Defendants due to the dust of the Plaintiff’s plant, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that there was no liability for damages due to the dust of the Plaintiff’s plant.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The Defendants were exposed for a long period of time in cement dust of the Plaintiff’s plant and caused and expanded pneumoconiosis or COTPPs, and the results of the instant health examination conducted by the National Environmental Research Institute on 2010 also verified. The Plaintiff is liable for all damages suffered by the dust discharged from the Plaintiff’s factory pursuant to the Framework Act on Environmental Policy 2). As such, the Plaintiff is liable for compensation for damages against the Defendants who claimed compensation for damages, as a counterclaim, the amount of consolation money for the Defendants who received diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, the amount of KRW 50 million for each of the Defendants who received diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, and the amount of KRW 10 million for each of the Defendants who received diagnosis of pneumoconiosis, and shall compensate for the financial fees for filing an application for adjudication on each central environment and for the replacement of the roof of the Defendant ○○, ○○, and Magh.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As to the recognition of damage caused by pneumoconiosis (as to the part concerning Defendant T-○, OO, Air-O, Air-O, Air-O, and Park Poe-O)

1) As to Defendant 1’s seat ○○, and Park ○○

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 22, and 23, the above defendants were diagnosed by each pneumoconiosis (type No. 1) at the health examination of this case, and at the Gangwon National University Hospital, defendant Ho-○ was diagnosed by each pneumoconiosis (type No. 1), and at the Gangwon National University Hospital, defendant Ho-○ was diagnosed by each pneumoconiosis on Nov. 7, 2012, but it is recognized that the above defendants suffered from pneumoconiosis (type No. 3, 21, and 22, and the results of fact inquiry by the Labor Welfare Corporation and the whole purport of the arguments by this court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① Defendant tin○ filed an application for medical care for pneumoconiosis with the head of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, but, at the same time, applied for medical care.

8. The result of the examination of precise diagnosis and pneumoconiosis conducted from September 2, 201 to September 2, 201 by the Hasan Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee was determined as follows: “C: 0/0, and cardiopulmonary injury: FO’s “FO was dismissed on October 19, 201, and accordingly, it was decided to dismiss the application on January 19, 201; 3) but the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service requested a review of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Review Committee on January 2, 2012; however, there was a ruling to dismiss the application on March 22, 2012.

② Defendant Park Jong-○ also applied for medical treatment for pneumoconiosis symptoms at the head of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service’s Chungcheong branch, but as a result of the close diagnosis and pneumoconiosis review conference conducted from September 19, 201 to September 23, 201, the following determination is made: “C: 0/0, and cardiopulmonary injury: FO “A and thus cannot be deemed as pneumoconiosis.”

11.3. The application was dismissed, and the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation filed a request for examination against it, however, 2011.

12. A decision was made to dismiss it in light of the fact that there was a request for reexamination to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but on March 22, 2012, there was a decision to dismiss it, and on December 27, 2011, at a hospital within the Korea National University, Korea National University was diagnosed that there was a trace of tuberculosis in the past as a result of the examination on December 27, 201, and that the function of abolition was good.

(3) The pneumoconiosis symptoms are caused by the dysty of dust caused by the dys or C, and it is difficult to distinguish the dysys and pneumoconiosis diseases caused by the previous dysys or C with images given that such dystys alone do not constitute a comprehensive consideration of various factors, such as the patient’s occupational and clinical symptoms, and a detailed determination based on the tracking observation for a considerable period of time. Thus, it is difficult to readily dismiss the determination of the Pneumoconiosis Review Board (Article 191-7 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and Article 38 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act) which is legally reflected in the composition and operation process, or the result of raising an objection thereto (the above Defendants did not file an administrative lawsuit against a request for review).

2) As to Defendant ○○, Defendant ○, and Defendant ○, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1

According to the statement in the evidence No. 2, B, the above defendants, are the decedent, B, 2010.

7. Even though the health examination of this case conducted light was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of the statements and arguments as stated in Gap's Evidence Nos. 4, 19, and 33, the pneumoconiosis had worked in the mine for the past 6 years, the pneumoconiosis was exposed to dust, etc., and most of them have occupational capabilities related to dust. As the most part of it is coal mine dust, it is highly probable that Song YU has suffered from pneumoconiosis due to dust exposed from the past mine. As seen above, dusts generated in cement manufacturing process can be separated, and it is difficult to conclude that the dusts generated from dusts are less likely to cause pneumoconiosis in the cement manufacturing process, and there is no possibility that there is no possibility that dusts occur after dust dusts occur in the region adjacent to the cement, and there is no possibility that dusts occur in the process of melting the plaintiff's plant, and there is no possibility that there is no further possibility that dusts occur after dusts generated in the process of melting the plaintiff's plant.

On the other hand, even if the above Defendants had served in the mine, Article 760 of the Civil Code is applicable.

However, Article 760(2) of the Civil Act asserts that the causal relationship between the occurrence of pneumoconiosis and the dust discharged from the Plaintiff’s factory is presumed in accordance with the joint tort doctrine under paragraph (2). However, on the premise that several acts constitute a tort related to the occurrence of each consequence, the joint liability for the occurrence of the result is held liable, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff committed a tort related to the occurrence of pneumoconiosis. Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the above defendants cannot be deemed to have contracted pneumoconiosis with materials discharged from the plaintiff factory. Thus, there is no liability for damages against the above defendants due to materials discharged from the plaintiff factory. Thus, this part of the main claim of the plaintiff seeking confirmation of non-existence of the liability for damages is reasonable, and the above defendants' counterclaim seeking damages on the premise that the above defendants suffered from pneumoconiosis due to materials discharged from the plaintiff factory is without merit.

B. As to whether COPD damage is recognized (as to the part concerning the remaining Defendants except Defendant Y○○, OO, SongO, Matri, Matri, Matri), relevant legal principles

In a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to pollution, since there is a large number of causes discharged by an enterprise indirectly causing damage by using water as a medium, and there is a field in which current scientific level cannot be clear about pollution issues, it is extremely difficult or impossible to prove 1 high interest scientifically, as it constitutes a causal relationship between harmful act and the occurrence of damage. Therefore, in the lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to pollution, it is likely that the victim's request for a scientific strict certification as to the existence of factual causal relationship might result in a refusal of judicial relief due to pollution, while the victim company is likely to have much more easy to investigate the cause than the victim technically and economically, and it is likely that the victim company might avoid liability unless it proves that it would be harmful in the victim's damage if it discharges harmful substances and it reaches the damaged object (see Supreme Court Decision 1984Da6888, Jun. 6, 1984).

12. Judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Da558, Oct. 29, 2009; 2009Da42666, Oct. 29, 2009)

In full view of the following circumstances recognized based on the aforementioned legal principles, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 4 through 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is reasonable to view that COPD was generated and expanded due to dust in the plaintiff factory. (a) The above Defendants were 200 g/ Sm around 1994, and 100 g/ Sm around 1998, around 1999, and 50 gm after around 1999, and 50 g/ Sm from around 1999. The average dust emission quantity from 200 to 200 gm from 193.7m of the plaintiff factory to 199, and the average dust emission quantity from 200 gm of the above PE was considerably higher than that from 15.1m to 2009 to 201m of dust emission, respectively, and there were no administrative dispositions related to the plaintiff plant’s 200 m of dust.

B) In the instant health examination, the said Defendants were judged COPD with the following [Attachment 5].

[Attachment 5]C, even if it is appropriate to regulate public law, it cannot be ruled out that the health condition of residents nearby the factory that has been continuously exposed to dust emitted from the plaintiff factory for a long time (the maximum known distance considering dust emission, morals, etc. of the plaintiff factory is 500 to 800 meters in the plaintiff factory, and the above defendants can have an impact on the health condition of 30 years short of the above known distance for over 45 years). There is no evidence to acknowledge that other factors were led to the outbreak and expansion of COD of the above defendants.

D) According to the health examination of this case, *** Si** * * The above region and population composition, gender, smoking rate, and occupation history are similar, but the difference between the fine dust concentration in the atmosphere is more than 4% and more than 12.5% higher than 4%, and there is no significant difference in the gender, age, smoking power, and occupation characteristics of the participants in the COPD. In light of the fact that there is no significant difference in the gender, age, and history of the participants in the COPD, it is reasonable to see that the dust in the Plaintiff’s factory was the main factor of the COPD outbreak (1).

On the other hand, the plaintiff should have selected and investigated the same group as much as possible with the exception of the variables called side and cement factory. However, the ratio of male and smoking in the survey area is 49.1%, 43.4%, respectively, and the large tide area is 38.2%, 36.7%, respectively, and the primary business worker such as apartment dwelling ratio and forestry is *** * * *, the participation ratio in the large tide area is less than 10%, i.e., the current state of self-fe., COD due to statistical errors that do not represent the average group, i.e., the disease rate of pneumoconiosis or COD * * * the high level of health examination based on the above survey because the high level of health examination cannot be said to be more reliable than the high level of high level of area * * * * the high level of health examination based on this case.

Therefore, according to the health survey of this case as to whether the aforementioned selective forest was involved in the health survey of this case, the rate of male and smoking in the survey area of 49.1%, 43.4%, respectively, and 38.2%, 36.7% respectively, and the detached house ratio in the large-scale area of 42.8%, and the rate of single house in the survey area of 75.7% was higher than that of the survey area, although it is difficult to conclude that the rate of participation in the large-scale area of 40% is about 20%, and there is a possibility that there is a difference between the above evidence, Eul's appraisal results, the results of inquiry about the environment of the National Institute of Science and Technology, and the purport of the survey, and there is no possibility that there is a difference between the residents of this case and the residents of the large-scale area of 40%, and the number of employees of the large-scale area of 5%, it is more likely to participate in the survey.

In full view of the fact that the proportion of agriculture, etc. is higher than that of the large region, while agriculture, etc. is lower than that of the large region, it is difficult to conclude that there is a social and economic difference, and 7) statistical amendments were attempted at the data analysis stage of the health examination of this case, even if there are some errors in the above statistics, it is difficult to deem that such errors are hard to believe as a result of the investigation (in relation to the health examination of this case, it is difficult to expect the participation rate of the level similar to the survey region because there is no apprehension about expected interest based on the research results or harmful factors in the case of the large region residents in the region, and it is difficult to expect the participation rate of the survey region similar to that of the survey region, and the size and direction of the result cannot be denied as a whole because some parts of the results were involved in the reverse research process). Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to trust the above health examination in this respect, in light of accuracy and the fact that the COPD examination, which is the standard for COPD's diagnosis, is hard to say that 4% difference between the surface and the COPD's disease rate is a meaningful difference.

However, in light of the following circumstances, i.e., the overall purport of the arguments admitted as a whole, i.e., the following circumstances, ** City** the COPD examination conducted in the same way as face-to-face areas, and multiple experts participated in the health examination of this case and conducted the diagnosis, etc., it is difficult to view that the reliability of the COPD disease rate of the health examination of this case is deteriorated, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused by the outbreak and expansion of COPD to Defendant Lee ○○○○, Kim○○, Jin○, Cho Man-○, Ma○○, Jin-○, Jin-jin, Kim Il, Kim Jong-ri, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Kim △△, △△△, △△△, and Kim Il-young, and therefore, the part of the plaintiff’s main claim seeking confirmation against the above defendants that the plaintiff had no liability to compensate for damages caused by the exhaustion of the plaintiff’s factory, is without merit, and the counterclaim of the above defendants seeking the above damages is with merit.

4. Scope of liability for damages

A. The consolation money portion

In light of the empirical rule that Defendant ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Do○○, △○, △△, Ma○○, △△, △△, △△△, and △△△△, which caused considerable mental distress due to the outbreak and expansion of COTPP from the Plaintiff’s factory to the dust of the Plaintiff’s factory, health class, COPED has changed depending on symptoms, heavy dust, heavy dust, and heavy dust, so it is impossible to completely recover from life, ** 00 * * 00 * 0 0 * 0 0 * 0 0 0 ○, 30 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

B. Part of financial fees

Considering the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 45 through 47 and the overall purport of the arguments, it is reasonable to recognize the fact that each of the above defendants' fiscal fees stated in the "financial fees" column of attached Table 1 is paid as financial fees in the process of receiving the ruling of this case. Since it is reasonable to see that the above fiscal fees are due to the occurrence and expansion of COPD generated by the above defendants, the plaintiff is obligated to pay each of the above defendants' fiscal fees stated in the "financial fees" column ( defendant Pho○○○, OO○, ○○○, Song-○, Song, Mari, Mari, Mari, Mari, Mari, Mari, ○○, Mari, Mari, Mari, Mari○○, Mari, Mari○○, Mari, Mari, Mari○○, Mari, Mari○, and Kim Il-young, as seen earlier, for the above defendants.

C. According to the descriptions of the certificate of evidence Nos. 38 through 40, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to support that the above ground for the replacement of the roof was caused by a dust that occurred in the Plaintiff’s factory, the replacement of the roof is without need to further examine. The above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, there is no liability for damages against Defendant ○○○○○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○○○○○○, due to materials discharged from the Plaintiff’s factory, (i) the Plaintiff did not have any profit to seek confirmation of the existence of the liability for damages. According to the Defendants’ counterclaim, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendant ○○○○, Kim○, Jin, Jin○, Jin, Jinjin, Kim Il, △, △○, △○, △, △○, △, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, △△, and △△△, △△, △○, and △○○○○○○, which is the day following the instant financial decision demanding the said Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ and △○○○○’s counterclaim was dismissed by citing 20% of the following day of the judgment below, which is without merit.

Judges Jeon Soo-dae

Judge Lee Jae-hoon

Judges Yoon Dong-dong

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

1) The primary Efforts call volume (FEV1) refers to the amount of gas at the time of 1 second time after the concealment in a stable condition, and Efforts is discontinued.

FVC means the amount of gas at the time of full-time rest after hiding.

2) The Framework Act on Environmental Policy

Article 3 (Definitions)

1. The term "environmental" means the natural and living environment;

3. The term "living environment" means an environment related to the daily life of people, such as the atmosphere, water, soil, wastes, noise, vibration, malodor, sunshine, etc.;

means.

4. The term "environmental pollution" means air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, sea pollution, which is caused by business activities and other human activities;

Radioactive contamination, noise, vibration, malodor, sunshine obstruction, etc. means the condition that causes damage to human health or the environment.

Article 44 (Strict Liability for Damages Resulting from Environmental Pollution)

(1) Where any environmental pollution or environmental damage has occurred, the relevant person who has caused such environmental pollution or environmental damage shall spread the relevant damage.

section 1.2.

(2) Where at least two persons have caused environmental pollution or environmental damage, any sufferings under paragraph (1) shall be made by any of such persons.

When the revenue stamp is unknown, each causer shall jointly and severally compensate for it.

3) Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Article 45 (Claims, etc. for Medical Expenses)

(1) An industrial accident insurance-related medical institution provides medical treatment pursuant to Article 40 (2) or 91-9 (1) and expenses incurred therein (hereinafter referred to as "medical expenses").

(d) If it is claimed to the Service, it shall be claimed to the Service.

Article 103 (Filing of Request for Examination)

(1) A person who is dissatisfied with a decision, etc. made by the Service (hereinafter referred to as "decision, etc. on insurance benefits") falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be vacant:

Provided, That a request for examination may be made.

2. A decision on medical expenses referred to in Articles 45 and 91-6 (4);

(2) A request for examination under paragraph (1) shall be filed with the Service, via an agency affiliated with the Service which makes a decision on insurance benefits.

4) Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Article 106 (Filing of Petition for Review)

(1) Any person who is dissatisfied with a decision on a request for examination made under Article 105 (1) shall be the Reexamination Committee for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance under Article 10

a request for review may be made to the Board: Provided, That a person dissatisfied with a decision on insurance benefits which has been deliberated upon by the Determination Committee shall be subject to Article 103.

A request for reexamination may be filed without filing a request for examination under Article.

5) P - The value: The estimated value of the observed statistical quantity for the purpose of testing data (if it is deemed that there is a difference in the result of a p.m., the quantity of the observed data;

and the degree of support for the opposite installation is expressed at the probability, and the value is expressed at the probability, and the value is recorded at the same time supporting the earless establishment.

The degree of dismissal of the ear-free theory is weak, and the level of support for the ear-free theory is increased as the value is large, and the ear-free theory is adopted.

게 된다. 보통 p - value≤0. 05는 오차가 일어날 확률이 5 % 미만인 것으로, 귀무가설을 기각하게 되고, 0. 05 이상

(1) The difference shall be deemed to have been defined as "here".