The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the following parts are the same as the ground of the first instance judgment, except for the cases being rejected as set forth in paragraph (2):

2. The following shall be added to the 11th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is written after the completion of the 11th page of the judgment:

As the Defendant currently occupies the instant land, it constitutes “a person who occupies the land on which soil contamination has occurred” under Article 10-4(1)4 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act.

The following shall be added to 15 pages 3 of the first instance judgment.

C. Even if it is impossible to find who caused soil contamination on the instant land for household affairs, the Defendant is a person who occupies the instant land and constitutes a person responsible for purification under Article 10-4(1)4 of the Soil Environment Conservation Act, along with the Plaintiff, and the said provision is merely a person responsible for purification under Article 10-4(1)4, and the owner and the occupant do not specify the order of priority between the owner and the occupant

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 76,797,550 (i.e., KRW 153,595,100 x 1/2) equivalent to 1/2 of the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 10-4(4) of the Soil Environment Conservation Act and delay damages therefor.

The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. (4) Since the land was used as a railway-related site from around 1916 to around 1916, it is difficult to grasp the degree of the soil contamination and the amount of the pollutant discharge among the persons who committed the act of contamination, if there are several persons who committed the act of contamination, and there is no special data to grasp it. (5) The soil contamination of the land of this case is the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff.