The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof in a pollution lawsuit and the assertion of violation of the rules of evidence related thereto

A. Generally, in a claim for damages due to a tort, the burden of proving the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage is borne by the claimant. However, in a claim for damages due to air pollution or water pollution, there are many cases where the cause substance discharged by an enterprise indirectly damages by using air or water as a medium, and the current scientific level cannot be clarified with respect to pollution issues, so it is difficult or impossible to prove one class of causation between the harmful act and the damage in nature. As such, in a lawsuit for pollution, requiring a scientific strict proof as to the existence of factual causal relationship by the victim might result in the actual refusal of judicial relief due to pollution. However, it is highly easy for the victim to investigate the cause more easily than the victim due to technical and economic aspects, and it is likely that the cause might be concealed. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the injured enterprise is not liable for the damage unless it proves that the harmful substance is discharged and the damage was caused by its arrival of the damaged article.

(2) As to the appraiser’s appraisal result, the appraiser shall respect the appraiser’s appraisal method, etc., unless there is a significant fault that is contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable, etc.

Supreme Court Order 9 July 2009