Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 delivered on August 2, 200

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys literature-Bed et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 9, 2009

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gahap18858 Decided August 21, 2007

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Following the expansion of the purport of the claim in the Plaintiff’s trial:

The Defendant’s KRW 439,713,00 and this money to the Plaintiff:

(a) 5% per annum from February 2, 2008 to April 25, 2008 with respect to 215,500,000 won, and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date;

B. As regards KRW 224,213,00, 5% per annum from February 27, 2009 to March 5, 2009 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The appeal cost (including the costs of the lawsuit following the extension of the claim) shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s KRW 2,260,027,960 and the instant money to the Plaintiff:

(a) for KRW 142,49,000, 5% per annum from February 27, 2002 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date;

(b) For 619,00,000 won, the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from May 21, 2003 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and that of 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date;

(c) For 533,343,000 won, 5% per annum from December 30, 2004 to the service date of a copy of complaint; and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date;

(d)for KRW 84,303,460, the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from January 1, 2004 to the service date of a copy of the complaint and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date;

E. For KRW 334,189,000, the amount calculated by the respective 5% per annum from July 1, 2006 to the date of service of the Plaintiff’s application for modification of the purport of the claim as of May 18, 2007 and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

F. For KRW 106,980,500, the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 23, 2007 to the date of service of the Plaintiff’s application for modification of the purport of the claim as of May 18, 2007 and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

G. As regards KRW 215,500,000, the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from February 2, 2008 to the date of service of the Plaintiff’s application for modification of the purport of the claim as of April 24, 2008 and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

H. From February 27, 2009 to the date of service of the Plaintiff’s application for modification of the purport of the claim as of March 4, 2009, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

【Plaintiff extended the purport of the claim in the trial】

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the entry of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the result of on-site inspection in the trial due to the basis of recognition.

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument in the trial

(a)a claim for exemption under Article 5(2) of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement;

(1) Article 5(2) of the Agreement under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America relating to Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement”) provides that “the Republic of Korea shall not impose any burden on the United States, and shall provide all facilities, zones and traffic rights, including facilities and areas jointly used, as well as facilities and areas in airports and ports as provided in Articles 2 and 3 during the term of validity of this Agreement, and shall compensate their owners and suppliers as appropriate. The Government of the Republic of Korea shall guarantee the use of such facilities and areas by the Government of the United States of America, and shall not be damaged by the Government of the United States of America, agencies and employees of the Government of the United States of America and the United States of America.” Thus

(2) In the relationship between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, Article 5 (2) of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement provides that the Republic of Korea may allow the United States to use facilities and areas in the Republic of Korea. The latter part of the above provision refers to a claim for compensation by the use of facilities and areas in principle with professional interpretation, and it does not mean a claim for compensation arising from unlawful acts committed by the users of the facilities and areas. Thus, as in the case of this case, Article 23 (5) of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement shall apply in relation to illegal acts committed by the members of the United States armed forces during the performance of official duties, and thus, Article 5 (2) of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement shall not be applicable. In addition, since the above provision provides for the relationship between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, it cannot be asserted by the defendant against the plaintiff who is the victim of illegal acts. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion

(b)in respect of Article 23(5) of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement

(1) The defendant asserts to the effect that in relation to Article 23 (5) of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement, the actual party to the lawsuit of this case, the defendant filed a claim for damages due to pollution by domestic property managed by the military of the Republic of Korea, and the statutes of the Republic of Korea and regulations of the Republic of Korea are not responsible for the lack of deliberation, resolution, or adjudication.

(2) Main contents of section 23(5) of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement

As an act or omission of the United States Armed Forces or Employees, or any other act, omission or accident by which the United States Armed Forces is legally responsible, claims (excluding claims under a contract) arising from any third person other than the Government of the Republic of Korea which has inflicted damage on the Republic of Korea shall be dealt with by the Republic of Korea in accordance with the following provisions:

(a)The claims shall be filed, examined, resolved or tried in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Republic of Korea concerning claims arising from the conduct of the armed forces of the Republic of Korea.

(b) The Republic of Korea may resolve the foregoing claims, and the payment of the amount agreed upon or determined by the trial shall be made in the original form of Korea.

(c) The final decision by the preceding court that such payments or payments are not recognized is final binding on the Parties.

(3) The provision of Article 23 of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement provides that illegal acts committed by members, etc. of the U.S. Armed Forces shall be treated equally in accordance with the same law as those committed by members, etc. of the ROK-U.S. Armed Forces, and it is not reasonable to view that there is a precedent related thereto, and the defendant's above assertion also is without merit.

C. Claim for the extinction of prescription

(1) The Defendant asserts that Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall apply to the claim for damages arising from a tort under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act. The Plaintiff asserts that the period of extinctive prescription expires since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 3, 2006 after three years from January 2, 2001 where oil was discovered in the aggregate underground water in the instant green field.

(2) Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting date of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, etc., actually and specifically, knows the facts of the requirements for the tort, such as the occurrence of damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the harmful act and the damage. Whether the victim, etc., is deemed to have actually and specifically perceived the facts of the requirements for the tort should be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of various objective circumstances in each individual case and situations in which the claim for damages is practically possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da30440, Apr. 24, 2008; 98Da30735, Sept. 3, 199).

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 17-1 through 3, the plaintiff was found from the ground water of this case on Jan. 2, 2001, but the plaintiff requested 1 and 2 services to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and the Gongju University. As a result, on Apr. 17, 2003, the kind of oil discovered from the No. 20-8 and the No. 20-8 were used for the above 20-year period around the No. 100-year period, and the No. 20-year period of compensation for damage was 1000-year period, and the No. 20-year period of compensation for the above 20-year period of time was 30-year period of time. The plaintiff was found to have been using the No. 20-year period of time for the above 20-year period of time for the No. 820-year period of time for the above 20-year period of time.

3. Scope of damages.

원고가 위에서 본 바와 같은 녹사평역 부지의 유류오염으로 인하여 입은 손해배상금 중 일부를 청구하는 이 사건에 있어서, 갑제5, 7, 13, 15(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고가 녹사평역 부지의 오염원을 확인하기 위해, 1차용역비로 2002. 2. 26. 농업기반공사에 142,499,000원을, 2차용역비로 2003. 4. 17. 공주대학교에 170,000,000원, 2003. 5. 20. 농업기반공사에 449,000,000원, 합계 619,000,000원을 각 지급한 사실, 유류오염에 따른 응급조치를 위한 유수분리기 설치, 누유처리자재 구매, 폐유처리, 환기가동시간 증가, 탈취제 구입을 위해 2003. 12. 31.까지 84,303,462원을 지출한 사실, 유류에 오염된 지하수를 정화하기 위해 농업기반공사(이후 한국농촌공사로 변경)에, 2004. 12. 29. 533,343,000원, 2006. 6. 30. 334,189,000원, 2007. 2. 22. 106,980,500원, 2008. 2. 1. 215,500,000원, 2009. 2. 26. 224,213,000원을 각 지급한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고는 원고에게 위 지출금의 합계 2,260,027,960원(=142,499,000원+619,000,000원+533,343,000원+84,303,460원+334,189,000원+106,980,500원+215,500,000원+224,213,000원)과 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 이 돈 중, 142,499,000원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2002. 2. 27.부터 이 사건 소장부본 송달일인 2006. 3. 22.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을, 619,000,000원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2003. 5. 21.부터 이 사건 소장부본 송달일인 2006. 3. 22.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을, 533,343,000원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2004. 12. 30.부터 이 사건 소장부본 송달일인 2006. 3. 22.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을, 84,303,460원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2004. 1. 1.부터 이 사건 소장부본 송달일인 2006. 3. 22.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을, 334,189,000원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2006. 7. 1.부터 원고의 2007. 5. 18.자 청구취지변경신청서부본 송달일인 2007. 5. 18.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을, 106,980,500원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2007. 2. 23.부터 원고의 2007. 5. 18.자 청구취지변경신청서부본 송달일인 2007. 5. 18.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을, 215,500,000원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2008. 2. 2.부터 원고의 2008. 4. 24.자 청구취지변경신청서부본 송달일인 2008. 4. 25.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을, 224,213,000원에 대하여는 그 지출일 이후인 2009. 2. 27.부터 원고의 2009. 3. 4.자 청구취지변경신청서부본 송달일인 2009. 3. 5.까지는 민법 소정의 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 완제일까지는 ‘소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법’ 소정의 연 20%의 각 비율로 정한 지연손해금을 각 지급할 의무가 있다고 할 것이다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal of this case (including the part extended in the trial) is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, so the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the payment of the money stated in Paragraph 2 of this Article which is additionally recognized in the trial.

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)