The case recognizing liability for tort due to the factory's harmful diversification;

In a case where there are defects in the facility and in particular, due to the negligence of the employee's failure to know on the work technology, the Plaintiff suffered enormous damages by withdrawing a large amount of harmful gas, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff’s Attorney Cho Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Han-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 70Na291 delivered on July 6, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to the records, according to the plaintiff's claim for damages, the defendant's unlawful act claims for damages from the total harvest amount that the plaintiff would have been able to operate an orchard in the year 1968 and 1969 due to the damage caused by the plaintiff's severe damage to his own orchard, and thus, the plaintiff claims for damages from the total harvest amount that could have been obtained by deducting farming expenses from the total harvest amount that the plaintiff would have been able to obtain by operating an orchard in the above years. Thus, the plaintiff did not decide on the defendant's claim that the rent amount that the plaintiff would have gained by leasing the orchard as the factory site would have increased due to the construction of the factory of the defendant company, which would have been considered in calculating the amount of damages, even though it did not constitute an unlawful violation of the judgment of conviction that could have affected the result of the original judgment recognizing the net profit damages that could have been obtained upon the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the argument is without merit.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, according to the records, the defendant can be known that he recognized the establishment of Gap evidence 6 (damage confirmation sources to agricultural crops), so it cannot be said that the court below erred in the overall protocol which is admitted as evidence of fact-finding with no dispute over the establishment of the above evidence. The arguments are without merit.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, the court below held that the defendant company's liability for damages arising from the above tort is recognized by recognizing the fact that the defendant company's dual fertilizer plant was defective in the facilities where the removal facilities of the original damage caused by the lack of equipment equipment at the time when the factory was operated, and in particular, caused considerable damage to the plaintiff's orchard by the employee's negligence in his work technology, and thus, the defendant is liable for damages due to the above tort. Therefore, there is no argument that the court below did not judge the liability for damages due to the

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the plaintiff's damage in 1969 was caused by the defendant's original tort and recognized the defendant's damage liability without any evidence since it was judged by the court below in 1968 that the plaintiff sought farming of the orchard owned by the defendant's factory in the year of 1968, but did not harvest at all due to the damage of the defendant's factory, and since it is apparent that the harmful damage of the defendant's factory in the year of 1969 only consumed the plaintiff's agricultural expenses and did not obtain any harvest, it can be recognized that the plaintiff inevitably renounced his farming. Thus, the plaintiff's damage in 1969 was caused by the defendant's illegal act at the time of the defendant's original judgment and the defendant's damage liability is justified by reviewing the records. Accordingly, the court below's error of the defendant's damage liability without any evidence can not be found to have been found to be incomplete facilities related to removal of harmful materials of the defendant company as seen above, and evidence relations with the employee's prior knowledge of work technology cannot be acknowledged as evidence.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, according to the records, it is necessary for the plaintiff to claim damages for damages for excess water sources that had already been incurred during the year 1968 and 1969. Since the plaintiff claimed damages for future profit loss loss compensation which could have been incurred due to the death of excess water owned by the plaintiff, not the market price, but the exchange price, and did not claim the same, it cannot be said that the original judgment erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of liability for damages to the early place which accepted the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, there is no argument about this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)