[1] The case affirming the State's liability for compensation on the ground that the State's failure to provide direct asbestos regulation standards to determine that there is "a state of imminent and serious danger or injury to life, body, property, etc." of the above infants, infants and their parents, and their parents, who purchased and used beer spathum containing asbestos, were aware of the existence of asbestos in beer spathum, but did not regulate it, thereby causing mental shock and pain, etc., the State's failure to regulate it, and it cannot be acknowledged that the State knew or could have known that there was an asbestos in beer spathum because it contained asbestos in beer spathum

[2] The case holding that, in a case where a baby, a baby, and his parents who purchased and used a bees-containinger containing asbestos claimed compensation for mental shock and pain against the manufacturer of bees-rayer and the enterprise that supplied the bes-rayer's main ingredients to the manufacturer and its parents, it is difficult to view that the above enterprise is liable to compensate for mental distress unless it is objectively supported by specific, medical, and scientific grounds, such as mental distress, shock, etc. claimed by the baby and its parents

[1] The case holding that in a case where a state compensation claim is filed for mental shock and parents of a baby or baby whose parents purchased or used a bees-containing asbestos containing asbestos, on the ground that the state knew of the existence of asbestos in a bees-ray and its parents, which is its main ingredient, and did not regulate it, even if the state did not directly inflict any damage on the body of the baby or infant, it is hard to view that the state knew or could not have clearly verified the harmfulness of asbestos in the event of exposure to a bes-rayer containing asbestos, and that there is no possibility that the state's use of asbestos is likely to cause any harm to the baby or infant due to its mental shock and its parents' awareness of the existence of asbestos in the bes-ray and its parents, and that there is no possibility that the state's use of asbestos is likely to cause any harm to the baby or infant due to the increase of its parents' ability or personality rights, etc., and that there is no possibility that it is difficult for the state to use it for a long time due to the exposure, exposure route, etc.

[2] The case holding that, in a case where a baby or a parent of a baby who purchased or used a baby containing asbestos and his or her parents sought mental compensation for damages on the ground of the infringement of a baby's mental suffering, such as the sense of liability for the crime against the baby, the awareness of the existence of asbestos in the part of the skin of the baby or the parent of the baby, and the mental suffering and parents of the baby or the enterprise that supplied the baby's main ingredients to the manufacturer and the enterprise, etc., for the baby's own use of the baby's main ingredients, and the baby's mental suffering and parents, such as the sense of liability for the crime against the baby, the fear of suffering from various asbestos-related diseases that may occur in the next growth process, consumer's choice and personality rights, etc., the above baby or the baby and its parents were presumed to have suffered some mental shock, but their claimed mental suffering and shock, etc. are not supported by specific, objective, medical and scientific grounds, it is difficult to view that the above enterprise has mental compensation liability for the damage.

[1] Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 751 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 129 others (Attorney Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Republic of Korea 8 others (Attorneys Lee Ba-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 25, 2010

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to each of the Plaintiffs KRW 300,00,000 as shown in the separate sheet No. 2, and each of them shall be paid 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the pronouncement of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the plaintiffs and the defendants

Defendant Boen-si Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Boen-si”), UPL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Boen-si”), sexuallymal agents Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Boen-si”), Defendant 5 (Pazines), and Defendant 6 (Korean Embazines) are the companies that have manufactured Bebane by being supplied with scarkes, which are the primary raw materials of the Defendant Sobane from the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Sobane”), and manufactured Bebanes, by being supplied with scarkes from the Defendant Scene (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Scene”), and the Defendant Boen-ma Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Scene”), are the companies that have manufactured Bebanes.

On the other hand, as shown in the attached list 3, the plaintiffs are infants, infants, or their parents claiming that they purchased and used bebacciners manufactured by Defendant Boan, U.S.L., sexual oral agents, Defendant 5, 6, and Korea Callma using the above sloping as their main ingredients.

(b) The detection of asbestos as a result of the besavian experiment and the measures taken by the Defendants against it;

(1) On March 30, 2009, KBS program asked the Korea Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter “Food and Drug Administration”) to gather asbestos including beer asbestos. On March 30, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration conducted an asbestos detection test for all beer products using beer and 30 asbestos in the city (total of 14 companies) around March 30, 2009. As a result, eight asbestos was discovered in 12 items, and the asbestos was discovered in the 12 items, and the asbestos was discovered in the 2nd inspection method, and the asbestos was discovered in the 14th inspection method, and the asbestos was found in the 5th inspection method, which was manufactured in the 14th biter and 5th biter products, and the asbestos was found in the biter and 5th biter products, which were manufactured in the biter and 5th biter products. However, the asbestos was found in the biter products manufactured by the Korea Food and Drug Administration.

(2) On the other hand, the substance safety and health data (mDS) submitted by the Defendant NIF to the Defendant Republic of Korea stated that the ingredients of the substance are tampUM (Talcum), the species of the ingredients are sapone, the species of the species, rocks, and non-asbestoss (Talc and Non). The content was stated as “10% of the above ingredients.” The substance safety and health data submitted by the Defendant NIF to the supplier, such as the Defendant Bohsan, was stated as “TALC, NON-SBSSOSM,” and there was no indication that the substance safety and health data were asbestos contained in the tamp. The Defendant NIF and NIF drug provided data to the supplier, as provided on the website of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency.

(3) As of April 1, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration immediately prevented the detection of asbestos, ordered the recovery and disposal of the products in circulation, and announced this fact in the mass media, including newspapers. In addition, on April 2, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration held the Central Pharmaceutical Affairs Council on the basis of Article 18 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, to establish a new “scam size standard” to establish a decam standard, and made it mandatory methods of detection of asbestos in scke, and notified the manufacturer of the said standard to implement it. Accordingly, the manufacturers published the collection of VV items that asbestos was detected in daily newspapers, and exchanged and refunded for one year until April 3, 2010.

(c) Asbestos, characteristics of sloping, and the degree of harm therefrom;

(1) Asbestos is a kind of ignum cancer, which is an erogenous compound located in natural natural ties, and a saccinic compound recovered from minerals of respective islands. Asbestos is known as a erogenous and luminous substance, such as being classified into human exposure (Group 1) by the International Cancer Research Institute (IAOC). The U.S. toxic Chemicals Disease Registration Office (ATSDR) assessed asbestos as 90 levels when it evaluates the toxicity of the human body in 2007. Meanwhile, talc is mainly a substance manufactured by processing saccine and contains aquatic saccine or saccinium, and in the U.S. pharmacy food, asbestos is mixed with erogenic substances deemed safe in nature, and asbestos is mixed with erogenic substances deemed safe in nature.

(2) According to the "written opinion on advice as to whether asbestos is harmful to human body" dated April 1, 2009 of the Korean Toxic Association/Korea Environmental Drillece, which is an incorporated association, on April 1, 2009, it is a publicly known fact that asbestos may cause lung cancer if it is exposed through respiratory organ for a long time at a workplace. As such, it may cause a problem in human safety in that it is possible to be exposed to pulmonary organ. The hazard of asbestos differs depending on exposure quantity, exposure route, exposure period, exposure period, and asbestos content. Since it is not directly required for cancer even if it is low-capacity and short-term exposure, it is necessary to establish and communicate management methods through the establishment of standard values based on the scientific basis by experts. Although it is true that the exposure of asbestos is dangerous to human body, it may cause confusion only once in Vietnam, as argued by some scholars in the Republic of Korea, and thus, it is persuasive that there is no confusion in the exposure of asbestos in a state of 200 to 30g.

(3) According to the studies conducted upon the commission of the World Health Organization (WHO), physical changes caused by asbestos refer to the number of fiberss discovered in 5 to 20 fiber/c (1C). During the process of the brupter, there are about 0.4 fiber/c, the test result of which is about 0.4 fiber/cc) in the long term exposure to asbestos, and there is no known risk of exposure.

(4) According to the advice of professor of the department of law and Kim Hmp of the medical college industry of the Atol University, the degree of exposure to asbestos containing the Blusopian (if it is continuously used to become an adult, it is necessary to conduct other evaluation if it is used to be an adult) is highly likely to cause waste cancer, asbestosis, and asbestosis, etc., on the other hand, it is relatively low concentration and short-term exposure may occur. Thus, it is necessary to continuously observe the degree of exposure. However, since the density and the period of exposure are high, the probability of occurrence is higher than that of the person who is professionally exposed to asbestos, the probability of occurrence is higher than that of the person who is actually exposed to asbestos. At present, many of them are considered to be at least one to two levels per 1 million people, which is relatively lower than that of the people who are exposed to asbestos.

(d) the current regulatory status of Korea and other countries;

(1) Korean status

Article 37(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides that “no person shall manufacture, import, transfer, provide or use any substance prescribed by Presidential Decree, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs.” Article 37(1) of the same Act provides that “[t]he person shall manufacture, import, transfer, provide or use any substance which is confirmed to cause occupational cancer, and thus is deemed especially harmful to the health of workers; “[t]he harmful factors which assess hazard and danger pursuant to Article 39 of the same Act or investigate hazard and danger pursuant to Article 40, and are likely to cause serious health disorder to workers.” Article 29 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “[t]he person shall not give public notice of the content of asbestos in advance,” “[t]he article 29 subparag. 7 of the same Act provides that “[t]he person shall manufacture, import, transfer, provide or use any malicious asbestos and mosite asbestos” as a hazardous substance prohibited from being manufactured, imported, provided or used,” and “[t]he article 201 of the same Act provides the content of asbestos.”

Meanwhile, under Articles 31, 42, and 51 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, an importer and manufacturer of raw materials are required to import and manufacture raw materials in accordance with the Korean Pharmacopoeia, and the Korean Pharmacopoeia lists the net test items at the time and inspects them. According to the Korean Pharmacopoeia (amended by Act No. 9 of 2007), there is no examination as to whether or not asbestos is contained in the net test items. According to the current state of SCI as of April 1, 2009, according to the current state of SCI as of April 1, 2009, the paper on asbestos was listed in 5,539, total number of asbestos, but domestic research is relatively less than 10 parts and it is difficult to conduct research on human safety in Korea. However, according to the current state of SCI, there was no research on the safety function of asbestos at the National University as an asbestos-free research facility at the time of 204 request by the Food and Drug Administration.

(2) Current status of other States

In the case of Japan, as asbestos was detected in beer prone in around 1987, the industry has voluntarily taken measures for recovery and exchange of problems, and has prepared and managed the standards that asbestos should be included in 0.1% or less in the leck's welfare characteristics in Japan. In the case of Europe (EP) since around 2005, in the case of the United States, the "Standards for Unexploitation of Asbestos" in the United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) since around 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence or Gap evidence 1 through Eul 90; Eul evidence 1, 6, 7; Eul-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; Eul-2, 3, 4, 5; Eul-4, 5; Eul-5; Eul-2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14; Eul-1 to 10; Eul-13, and 14; the purport of the whole pleadings (including evidence numbers);

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiffs' claims

The plaintiffs violated the duty to prevent accidents, protect health and safety of the citizens of the State, consumer choice and goods, etc. as prescribed by Articles 34 and 36 of the Constitution, Article 71 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, Articles 8, 10, and 11 of the Framework Act on Consumers, and Article 37 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, by failing to regulate the existence of asbestos on the part of the defendant bed sck, which is the primary raw material of the defendant bed scoper, although the Republic of Korea knew that asbestos existed in the part of the bed scoper, and the plaintiffs who purchased and used the bed scoper containing asbestos but did not directly inflict any damage on the body, they claim that the remaining part of the defendant bed jointly and severally by the defendant bed 30 trillion won and the supply company of bed scoper and the defendant 30 billion won, since they suffered mental suffering, such as injury to children, such as asbestos caused in the future growth process, and consumers' personality rights were infringed.

【Plaintiffs asserts that they claim property damages for expenses incurred in monitoring asbestos damage occurrence in advance.】

B. Determination

In order to recognize the State's liability for damages caused by a mistake and omission by a public official, the requirements of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, i.e., when a public official inflicts damage on another person by intention or negligence in performing his/her duties, in violation of the statutes, should be met. Here, "in violation of the statutes," even though the duty to act is not specified in the laws and regulations in a formal sense, it shall include cases where the State whose primary mission is to protect the lives, etc. of the people is "in an imminent and serious danger or risk to the lives, body, property, etc. of the people" violates the duty to act recognized as the State or related public officials when it is impossible to protect the people unless the State, whose primary mission is to protect the lives, etc. of the people, fails to protect the people. However, unless the situation of imminent and serious danger or risk is caused or is likely to occur, in principle, it shall not be deemed that the omission by a public official violates the statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da18520, Oct. 13, 2008).

In this case, we examine whether the Defendant’s failure to provide for the duty to inspect asbestos levels and the criteria for detection with respect to asbestos levels to manufacturers and users of bed, first of all, it is a dangerous substance classified as class 1 cancer in advanced countries such as Japan, Europe, and the United States, and it has already been set up and regulated asbestos regulation standards for sloping. However, according to the above results of the study on asbestos as seen earlier, it is exaggerated that asbestos is likely to be exposed to a small amount of exposure by bed, but it is also exaggerated that it is likely that asbestos is detected at normal level, and that the physical change caused by asbestos is exposed to a long-term quantity or more than a certain level, and that asbestos is likely to be exposed to a small amount of exposure, it is relatively less than a certain level than a certain level of exposure to be exposed to bed at a low level than a certain level of exposure to bed in the environment, but it is relatively less than a certain level of exposure to be caused by exposure to an asbestos at a low level than a certain level of exposure to the environment.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that exposure to asbestos containing asbestos has yet to be objectively and medically verified in the future. According to the research results of February 3, 2009 by the National Environment Institute of Environmental Campaign, it is difficult to view that the hazards of asbestos have yet to be exposed to a certain degree in daily life, such as construction sites and subways (Article 9, 10, and 11 of the Evidence). According to the records of the Ministry of Environment around March 2009, the maximum concentration of asbestos concentration inspection results in the air around the place of work where asbestos is removed, including 0.0134 Fber/C, which is 0.659 fber/C, and it is difficult to conclude that there is no risk of exposure to asbestos from exposure to each of the following areas: (a) the exposure of asbestos from the site of construction sites and subways to a certain degree; (b) the exposure of asbestos to a certain degree is likely to occur during the exposure period of exposure to asbestos to a certain degree; and (c) the exposure of asbestos from each of the plaintiffs to a certain level is difficult to a certain degree.

In addition, in order to recognize the State's liability for damages caused by omission, relevant public officials could have predicted such outcome and possible take measures to avoid such result (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40031, Oct. 9, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da82649, Sept. 24, 2009, etc.). The above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Republic of Korea knew or could have known the fact that asbestos is contained in beer, as it contains asbestos in beer non-surine, because it is difficult for the State to find that there was no risk of harm to the above raw materials that were prohibited from using in foreign countries or at issue. However, it is difficult for the Republic of Korea to find that there was no possibility that the State's duty to prevent harm to the above raw materials, such as asbestos from spreading, even if it was found that there was no possibility that it could be more safe and safe measures to prevent harm to the above raw materials, such as asbestos from spreading, because it is more likely that it would have been directly related to regulate the above products.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for state compensation against the defendant Republic of Korea is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Boan, U.S.L., sexual ore., Defendant 5, 6, Socsan, Socsan, Korea Call, and veterinary drugs

A. The plaintiffs' claims

The plaintiffs are found to have violated the Product Liability Act, as the above Defendants jointly and severally liable for mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs under the Product Liability Act, since the above Defendants supplied or manufactured a raw material, and the above Defendants violated the duty of care to collect sloping, excluding asbestos floors, even though they were responsible for collecting sloping, because they were the manufacturing enterprises of sloping and sloping drugs, and they violated the Consumer Protection Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even though they were liable to control safe quality through their own tests and inspections, they violated the aforementioned duty of care to ensure the safety of sloping supplied by Defendant Bosl, Ukel, Mani, Mani, 5, 6, and the Republic of Korea, while they were jointly and severally liable for mental damage to each of the above Defendants, such as asbestos disease and mental distress and scarcity caused by their scarcity and scarcity. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that they were jointly and severally liable for mental damage to each of the above Defendants.

【Plaintiffs asserts, in advance, that the cost of monitoring asbestos injury occurrence (in particular, claim that the minimum examination cost to be paid in the future is equivalent to KRW 3.50,00) is sought for property damage compensation for early detection of malicious species highly likely to cause damage.】

B. Determination

Although the plaintiffs did not have a direct physical damage at present, they claim that the above defendants are liable for mental damage caused by mental impulses suffered by the plaintiffs, uneasiness and fear of the occurrence of diseases in the future, consumers' choice and infringement of personality rights. Thus, first of all, we examine whether the above mental suffering, etc. claimed by the plaintiffs that they suffered compensation can be compensated as mental damage.

Generally, it is difficult to recognize that there is mental impulses to the extent of remote or uneasiness of health without actual diseases and injury. In particular, to recognize the possibility of the occurrence of diseases and uneasiness as mental damage in the future, specific and objective medical and scientific basis for the possibility of occurrence, occurrence rate, etc. should be supported (i) the U.S. Supreme Court also recognizes the possibility of the outbreak of asbestos in the absence of symptoms or diseases, the probability of the outbreak, the increase in the probability of the outbreak, and the future inspection cost, and so forth, in the case of e-Nthr Co. v. Baleley, 521 U.S. 424 (197). It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs suffered mental harm from exposure to asbestos by distinguishing it from the 3rdropic act of physical shock and physical contact with the 5thropic damage caused by the 5thropic health damage without any mental apprehension, and it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs suffered mental harm by the 5thropic damage without any mental fear.

In light of the fact that physical changes caused by asbestos are exposed to a certain level or more in the long term, the possibility of the outbreak of serious diseases, such as waste cancer and asbestosis is low if it is exposed to a certain degree or more in the long term by the belier. <2, however, malicious species are relatively low compared to cancer, etc., and can be exposed to a short period, but their outbreak rate is relatively low due to the outbreak caused by occupational exposure. <3> In case of exposure by the belier containing asbestos, it is difficult to view that the hazard has yet to be verified clearly and medically in the future;4) hazard of asbestos is difficult to be inevitably exposed to a certain degree in daily life such as construction site and subway, ⑤ exposure of asbestos to a certain degree, and how much difference between exposure and exposure period and exposure period in each case.

[A. In the instant case, there is no clear proof as to whether the Plaintiffs are actual users of beer scarbane containing asbestos. From January 2005 to July 25, 2008, Defendant Bohsan alleged that Defendant Bohovah was supplied with scarkes. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs’ assertion itself appears to have purchased the manufactured product prior to the said date, and there is no proof as to the date of manufacture by product claiming that the Plaintiffs used the products. Moreover, there is no proof as to the scarkes supplied by Defendant Bohovah medicine and the beer scarbanes manufactured by Defendant Bohovah, which were known to have not been detected, as seen earlier).

Therefore, although the plaintiffs were found to have suffered some mental impulses in this case, as long as the mental suffering, impulses, etc. claimed by the plaintiffs are not supported by specific, objective, medical, and scientific grounds, it is difficult to view that the above defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for mental suffering.

Likewise, insofar as there is no proof that the plaintiffs suffered, or threatened with, the safety of life and body, or actual damage to property due to the purchase and use of abes with asbestos containing asbestos, it is difficult to recognize mental damage compensation solely on the ground that the plaintiffs' right to select safe goods has been infringed abstractly. Moreover, insofar as the damages for monitoring costs claimed as preliminary by the plaintiffs are insufficient to objectively prove the probability of occurrence of asbestos-related diseases in the future, danger, etc., so long as the occurrence of property damage is not certain in the future, it is difficult to deem that the above defendants are currently liable to compensate for such damage as property damage.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the above defendants are without merit to examine further.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1 and 2]: omitted

Judges New Number of Days (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-chul

1) From June 2007, Defendant U.S.P. delegated Defendant U.S.P.D. with the pre-production process of the Vietnamese from June 2007.

Note 2) In the case of heavy metal non-litigation, which is the first priority of toxicity set by the US ATSDR, it is a representative rock material, but not set up 0-ppbide values of drinking water, and most developed countries including Japan use 10pbb whose drinking water base values, and in Korea, 50pbs.

3) However, it is unreasonable to interpret that the level of 0.4 fiber/cc is exposed to the same level as that of a day-to-day by the professor of the medical department of the medical department of the medical department of the medical department of the medical department of the Tolles, but it is unreasonable to interpret that the level of 0.4 fiber/cc is exposed to the same level as that of a day-to-day. After using the bamer, the level of actual exposure can be assessed to the level of exposure.

4) Meanwhile, the majority opinion held that the plaintiffs' mental suffering is not directly caused by asbestosis, but has been aware of the possibility of 10% from the doctors, and it cannot be viewed as a direct mental suffering resulting from physical injury, and thus, it cannot be compensated.