Cases in which liability for damage to crops is recognized due to the separation of harmful factors (the pollution case).

Although fertilizer factories are equipped with modern facilities and contribute to the development of the national economy by producing various fertilizers, it cannot be justified to the extent that it causes serious damage to crops by spraying large amounts of harmful gases in the production process.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Busan District Court (71 Gohap1379)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,883,076 won with 5% interest per annum from October 1, 1971 to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

As a public document, evidence Nos. 1-5, 2-1, 3-1, and 2 of evidence Nos. 1-3, and 3-2 of the court below's testimony (excluding partial reliance) and the result of verification of the civil records of the court below (Supreme Court Decision 71Da2016) which were prepared by non-party 2 and 3, etc. of non-party 9, the plaintiff had been operating a 412 dry field 3,000 water supply plant and 232 weeks around 190 water supply plant and 50 water supply plant near 196, which were non-party 1's residential life and caused damage to the non-party 6 water supply plant due to non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's testimony and non-party 1's non-party 1's witness's testimony.

The defendant company's attorney asserts that since the above fertilizer plant of the defendant company had the largest amount of facilities in light of the level of modern science and technology, there is no defect in the installation of a structure and there is a little of harmful pollution caused by the inevitable damage resulting from the economic construction and the development of the national industry, which falls within the scope of several people, and if the defendant company's liability for the prevention of pollution or its compensation is not attributable to the defendant company, it is reasonable for the defendant company to be responsible for the damages. The defendant company's above fertilizer plant to remove the above harmful damage for a considerable period of time during its operation, while the defendant company's above fertilizer plant has a considerable amount of harmful damage caused by the lack of employee's operational skills, it is reasonable that the plaintiff company's ownership caused a serious damage to the orchard, and even if the fertilizer plant has contributed to the development of the national economy by producing various fertilizers equipped with modern facilities, it is not reasonable for the defendant company to be held liable for damages to prevent any damage to nearby agricultural crops from occurring in the production process.

Then, the Plaintiff’s damages amount as above is that since the above harvested trees were entirely discarded for 1969 and the above harvested trees were discarded for 1969, the amount equivalent to the market value of the fruit trees and dry field for 1969 and 2 years of 1970 until they were sold to others, and thus, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff shall be deemed as losses. Accordingly, the damages suffered by the Defendant’s attorney shall be included in the limit of exchange value of the above fruit trees and the amount of future profit loss that can be derived from the above fruit trees for 1968, 1969, 1969, as compensation for damages for the above fruit trees for 196, 3,223, 929, which would not have been acquired from the above harvested trees for 196 years, and the damages for 2 years of 196, 96, 196, 3,29, 196, 3,29, 3,29, 1969.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of damages, if the testimony of Non-Party 6 is considered to be all the testimony of Non-Party 2 as a result of the appraisal of evidence No. 2 and the appraisal of the political party, the amount of damages is equivalent to 22,000 won per share and the amount of fruit trees produced outside the factory area of the Ulsan Industrial Complex, and 10,000 won per share. The above fruit trees owned by the plaintiff are merely 10,000 won per share if the above fertilizer plant of the defendant company was not constructed in the vicinity and the harmful gas was not closed, it is included in the factory area, and the amount equivalent to 22,00 won per share price cannot be used for the purpose of flowers, etc. due to the closure of 0,000 won, and the damages caused by the closure of trees cannot be recognized as 6,175,800 won per share, and the amount of damages caused by the closure of trees cannot be recognized as 97,000 won per share by the non-party 6.

If so, all damages suffered by the Plaintiff shall be KRW 6,835,800. However, it is obvious that the deduction from the above damages would constitute KRW 5,253,295 if it is deducted from the amount of loss of profit of the above orchard in 1969, which can be recognized by the evidence No. 3-2 of the above evidence No. 3-2.

Accordingly, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above recognized amount and damages for delay. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the amount of the claim of this case is justified in the original judgment with the reasoning of the judgment, the original judgment with the same reasoning of the judgment is just, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) and Cho Jong-hee