[1] Whether the tortfeasor’s scope of compensation can be limited by recognizing “the contributory portion of a natural power” as to the damage incurred under special natural conditions (affirmative in principle), and whether the determination of the ratio of contribution to the natural power in this context constitutes the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a tide embankment, etc. was constructed at the downstream of a public river where farmland farmers in the public river coastal areas used a public river as agricultural water and agricultural infrastructure was built, whether the manager of agricultural infrastructure is obligated to permit the use of water for farmland farmers not designated as a "construction management area" among the above coastal farmland (affirmative); and whether the farmer of farmland outside the public river management area is liable for damages due to the loss of the function of agricultural water due to the negligence of the above manager (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a farmer or a farmer who suffered damage due to defects in the installation and preservation of a structure and competition between natural disasters has received a subsidy for disaster relief expenses under the Act on the Countermeasures against Agricultural and Fishery Disasters, whether such subsidy can be deducted from the amount of damages to be borne by the possessor or owner of the structure

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 231 and 758 of the Civil Act; Articles 2 subparagraph 2, 11, and 13 of the Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act; Article 9 of the Addenda to the former Korea Rural Community Corporation and Farmland Management Fund ( February 5, 199) / [3] Article 4 of the Act on the Countermeasures against Agricultural and Fisheries Disasters; Article 758 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da734 Decided June 27, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1592), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da69652 Decided June 25, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66476 Decided April 29, 2005 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da66476 Decided April 29, 2005

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeong Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Rural Community Corporation (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Inducement-do et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2004Na9496 Decided January 27, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

Each ground of appeal shall be examined together.

1. As to the receipt and delivery of parcels as well as the defendant's negligence

The court below acknowledged facts based on its adopted evidence, and found that sea water was introduced into the instant parcel as a result of the negligence not maintained and managed so that the defendant can function properly through regular inspection without checking the opening or closing of the instant drainage lock, and that the salt level of the instant parcel heading became one of the abnormal rises. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and decision are just and there is no violation of the law related to the rules of evidence or any violation of the reasoning, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant.

2. As to the degree of contribution to the natural history

Even if the damage suffered by the victim under special natural conditions, unlike ordinary damage, if the perpetrator could have predicted such natural conditions or the degree of risk therefrom in advance, and if the perpetrator could have prevented the occurrence of risk under natural conditions by taking appropriate measures without any excessive effort or expense, the scope of compensation for the damage caused by the accident caused by neglecting to take measures to prevent the accident cannot be limited by recognizing the contributory portion of the natural force and limiting the scope of compensation. However, unless otherwise, the scope of compensation for the tortfeasor shall be limited to the remaining portion after deducting the portion deemed to have contributed to the natural ability in relation to the damage from the perspective of fair burden of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da734, Jun. 27, 2003; 2003Da69652, Jun. 25, 2004). The contribution and the degree of contribution to the natural history in this case belongs to the fact-finding court’s prior decision 2005Da646764, Apr. 26, 2009).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below deemed that the natural phenomenon of drought and typhoon (hereinafter "Plaintiff, etc.") contributed to the occurrence of damage caused by the plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") in addition to the artificial causes such as the blocking the drainage of low-rises, etc., and rejected the defendant's assertion that the damage of the plaintiff, etc. was caused entirely by such natural phenomenon, and it is difficult to deem that the defendant could have prevented the damage caused by droughts in advance, and limited the defendant's responsibility within the same scope as its reasoning. This is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of law as to the contribution of natural power and its degree, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff or the defendant, and the ratio of limitation of liability recognized by the court below as to the contribution of natural power to the above natural power is also acceptable, and it does not seem to be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

3. As to comparative negligence

(1) The fact-finding or the determination of its ratio on the grounds for offsetting negligence belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da35389 delivered on June 13, 200; 2006Da1455 delivered on October 11, 2007, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is acceptable that the lower court’s negligence by the Plaintiff, etc., who did not take appropriate measures to reduce damage caused by salt damage according to the Defendant’s agricultural guidance, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, deemed the cause of the instant damage and the extension thereof as well. In addition, in light of the above, the comparative negligence ratio acknowledged by the lower court is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to comparative negligence or the lack of reasoning as otherwise alleged in

(2) In addition, in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the ratio of negligence of the plaintiff, etc. should be separately calculated based on their individual factors, on the ground that there is no objective evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to comparative negligence or inconsistent reasoning

(3) According to Article 9 of the Addenda of the former Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation and Farmland Management Fund Act (Act No. 5759 of Feb. 5, 199), since the defendant comprehensively succeeded to the property of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association and other rights and obligations, the defendant succeeded to all the responsibility due to negligence in the management and supervision of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association, which was a member of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association, and since the plaintiff and some of the designated parties who were members of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association shall not be deemed to succeed to the responsibility of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association, the liability due to negligence in the management and supervision of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association shall be deemed to belong to the defendant, even if the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association was negligent in the management and supervision of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association with respect to the remaining construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the building without removing

Even if the court below did not make any decision on the grounds for comparative negligence alleged by the defendant, it is obvious that such assertion will be rejected for the above reasons, and the court below's error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be deemed to be unlawful without specifying the grounds for appeal as alleged by the defendant

4. As to the liability for damages against farmland owners outside the construction management area

According to the records of this case, farmers of the parcel river of this case, which were public rivers, used the water of the parcel bank and river as agricultural water before 1976 prior to the completion of parcel bank and drainage lock, and the parcel bank was created through the completion of the above tide bank and drainage lock, and the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association managed the above parcel and embankment as agricultural infrastructure. Of the parcels on the river of this case, farmland which farmers joined the above farmland improvement association as members of the above farmland improvement association was designated as the "association area" where agricultural water can be supplied from the above agricultural infrastructure, but other farmland was not designated as the cooperative area and its farmers used the water of parcel bank as agricultural water without being designated as the cooperative area or by entering into a water supply contract with the above farmland improvement association as a practice of transfer or by entering into a water supply contract with the above farmland improvement association. The defendant comprehensively succeeded to the rights and duties of the Jindo Farmland Improvement Association on January 1, 200 and thus, the above "association area" was designated as the "construction management area managed by the defendant. However, after the construction of Jindo Association or the construction of this case.

As above, if farmland farmers in the parcel, river, coastal areas had already used parcel, river as agricultural water since before the construction of parcel bank and drainage lock, it is reasonable to view that they had public river water rights or other similar water rights under the Civil Act. In such a situation, if tide embankments, etc. were constructed at the downstream of parcel river, and agricultural infrastructure such as parcel-ho, etc. was created, the manager of parcel-ho shall not interfere with the above farmers' right to use water from parcel-ho, and therefore, there is a duty to allow them to use water from parcel-ho even for farmland farmers who were not designated as the "association area" among parcel-ho coastal land (the fact that, after the construction of parcel bank and drainage lock, Jindo Farmland Association or the defendant has already caused objection to the use of agricultural water from farmland farmers outside the area of land management after the instant salt was generated, or that there was no ban on such use). Accordingly, if the defendant, the manager of the parcel-ho dam, who is the manager of the above parcel-owned area, has lost its function as farmland owner's damage compensation for agricultural water use.

Although the reasoning of the lower court’s explanation on this part is insufficient, the conclusion rejecting this part of the Defendant’s assertion is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of equity as otherwise alleged in the Defendant’s ground of appeal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of equity as to the measures taken by the lower court, which did not reduce the ratio of liability to farmland farmers outside

5. As to the assertion on the deduction of damage compensation

Based on Article 4 of the former Act on the Countermeasures against Agricultural and Fishery Disasters (Act No. 6568 of Apr. 7, 2001) and the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Countermeasures against Agricultural and Fishery Disasters (Ordinance No. 1404 of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Oct. 29, 2001), subsidies granted to farmers or fishers who suffered from natural disasters with the financial resources of the State and local governments shall be granted within a limited scope to protect farmers and fishermen from disasters, and there is no provision for exemption from the duty of subrogation or duty of reimbursement. In light of the above purpose of the system and the purport of the law, the above subsidy system belongs to the social security system of the nature of social compensation for promoting the improvement of the productivity of agriculture and fisheries and promoting stability in the management of agriculture and fisheries by devising countermeasures after the after-sales of agricultural and fishery production. Thus, even if the farmers or fishers who suffered from defects in the installation and preservation of structures and losses due to competition with natural disasters have been granted subsidies for the above disaster relief expenses, it does not refer to the above Supreme Court Decision 200646.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the sum of KRW 2,300,742,240, including living expenses, pesticide expenses, large-frequencys, and special compensation paid by the plaintiff and the designated parties from the National Treasury, etc. should be deducted from the amount of damages in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the damages

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)