(영문) 부산고등법원 2013.9.24.선고 2012나4343 판결

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial according to the plaintiffs' lawsuit acceptance, against the defendant Il-sung corporation, shall be changed as follows.

A. Defendant No.S. Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs 23,424,763 and 7,672,572 respectively, 5% per annum from January 12, 2010 to May 10, 2012; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 15,752,191 won per annum from January 12, 2010 to September 24, 2013 to the date of full payment; and 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against U.S. corporation are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' appeals and claims extended in the trial against the defendant Republic of Korea and Niceice Co., Ltd. are all dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.S. corporation share two minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant No.S. corporation. The remaining one bears the plaintiffs, and the defendant No.S. corporation bears the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea and the N. S. corporation (including the costs incurred by the extension of the claim) are borne by the plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs B, C, and D 67,596,396 won and each of the above amounts at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff extended the claim in the trial as above).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the deceased A, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs, is revoked. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the deceased A 68,007,453 won and 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Eul contains the statements or images of Gap 1 through 9, 15, 16 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 and 2, and Eul 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the physical examination entrusted to the head of Busan National University Hospital Hospital in the trial court, and the fact inquiry results, and Eul 10 does not believe some of the statements of Eul 10 are not contrary to this, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A. The relationship between the parties

1) On October 17, 1969, after the incorporation into the Japanese Chemical Industry Company on February 23, 197, after the incorporation into the Japanese Chemical Industry Company on February 29, 199, the company was changed to the current trade name on December 29, 199 (hereinafter “Defendant Day”) and was newly constructed a factory that produces asbestos products on the 525th ground of Busan East-gu, Busan (hereinafter “the asbestos factory of this case”) around October 1969, after the incorporation into the Japanese Chemical Industry Company, the company was changed to the Japanese Chemical Industry Company on February 23, 197. The company discontinued the asbestos factory of this case on March 26, 199, and discontinued the production of asbestos products of this case on March 26, 199, and discontinued the production of asbestos products of this case on the 20th of the manufacturing factory of this case.

2) On April 9, 1896, Defendant Nice Co., Ltd. was established as Japan Sstoves Co., Ltd. on and around 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Nice”) and produced asbestos products in the Republic of Korea on June 2, 1971, through the incorporation of Japan Stoves Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Isves”) in collaboration with the United Nations S to produce asbestos products in Korea.

3) The Defendant No.S. and Il-IS had produced asbestos products using asbestos production technology, such as asbestos capture, from Defendant NIS, and thereafter, the Il-IS was merged into UNS on October 10, 1985 after the incorporation into Ho-Sex Co., Ltd. on October 10, 1981.

4) From April 1971 to July 1972, the deceased A (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) worked in the asbestos department in the asbestos department in the asbestos plant in this case and worked in charge of pulverization of the original site.

B. Working environment, etc. of the asbestos factory of this case

1) Until now, asbestos storage plant in Korea has been located in most of 14 small and medium-sized businesses with less than 30 workers, and it is known that there are 9 small and medium-sized businesses in Busan, 2 small and medium-sized businesses in Busan, 2 small and medium-sized businesses in Ulsan, 1 medium-sized businesses in Chungcheongnambuk, and 1 medium-sized businesses in Chungcheongnambuk, among which the number of workers and production volume were the asbestos factory in this case operated by Defendant Y.

2) From December 1969 to March 26, 1990 in the asbestos plant of this case, Defendant SIS produced asbestos products. Among them, it is confirmed that at least 1,515 workers worked in the asbestos plant of this case were at least 1,515 workers.

3) Prior to around 1976, Defendant T.S. provided employees with a stringer without a stringer, and around 1976, he provided a stringer with a stringer, but did not timely replace the stringer with a stringer. When asbestos is cut off, he did not provide a stringer to the employees in charge of the duties that should have the stringer, and only provided a general working clothes made in general, not a working corridor’s dust-proof work clothes, but a general work clothes made in general, not a working corridor’s dust-proof work clothes, and it was always scattering asbestos in the workplace due to the failure to properly install or operate a stringer and a house-proof facility at the workplace.

4) In addition, Defendant No.S had conducted safety education with the content that the employees wear Jinas and Scarfs by making use of the time, such as Ainscing, but did not conduct specific safety education on diseases and methods for preventing exposure to asbestos.

1) In general, asbestos is commonly used in terms of thirrherogenal coination of fiber in natural ties. Asbestos is a chemical compound of fiber organs with a diameter of 0.02 to 03cm, which can be easily seen as a route, string, and strong fiber, and may be distributed in ceiling, and it is often used in places where incombustibility, resistant, resistant, and chemical combustibility is required due to heat resistance, combustibility, and combustibility. While asbestos is diverse, the number of asbestos is more than 30, it is generally used in terms of the kinds of asbestos, but it is more than three commercially important, such as blue asbestos and mothal asbestos, which is a luxine system, and asbestos production accounts for not less than 95% in the world.

2) White asbestos may be cut into a lush, sl, and solid fiber. However, even if each lux is in a solid state, even if the luxial shape is unfluened, it is in a solid state. For this reason, asbestos in a white field, such as blue asbestos, amosite asbestos, and a luxal stone, has a little impact on the upper part of the luxine. However, even if the luxial asbestos in a luxial body remains at the lower resistance of the luxic body, it would result in damage to the luxary cell because it has a long period of time in the luxic environment of the luxary cell. However, it is limited to the degree of difference, and all kinds of asbestos, including a luxal asbestos, are harmful to the luxic body and causes waste diseases.

3) Asbestos may cause a fatal disease, such as waste cancer, asbestosis, heavy spam, etc., even if there is no later exposure once again (the average five to thirty years). A representative disease caused by asbestos has a paper cancer among asbestosis, pulmonary cancer, and crypam cancer. Otherwise, asbestos has a pulmonary disease, pulmonary mar cancer, waste cancer, expansion of engine site, waste collection, waste cancer, head cancer, pulmonary cancer, and workplace cancer. In addition, asbestos has been reported by some researchers as non-vit substances, including the occurrence of pulmonary cancer, pulmonary cancer, extracting cancer, pulmonary cancer, waste collecting, pulmonary cancer, and crypitis.

4) 석면폐증(Asbestosis)은 석면을 취급한 적이 있는 환자나 그 가족 또는 석면을 취급하는 작업장 부근의 주민 등에게서 발생할 수 있는 미만성, 간질성 폐질환으로, 공 기 중에 노출된 다량의 석면 섬유가 폐포 내에 침착되어 생기는 폐선유증( 肺線維症) 을 가리키며, 석면 분진과 관련된 대표적인 질환이다. 석면폐증은 석면의 성상 외에도 피 폭된 양과 기간, 그리고 작업장의 환경에 따라서 발생율이 달라지는데, 석면을 채굴하 는 광부보다는 석면을 가공하고 섬유화시키는 과정에 종사하는 사람에게서 더 많이 관 찰된다. 석면폐증의 감별진단으로는 폐 섬유화를 유발하는 모든 질환을 고려하여야 하 고 , 심한 석면폐증에서는 호흡부전, 폐성심 등이 나타날 수도 있다.

5) If asbestos is exposed once, the disease continues to progress without being exposed thereafter, but it is important to keep asbestos exposed (the diving machine is ordinarily about 5 to 30 years). The Korea Industrial Safety Corporation shall wear an appropriate internal chemical protection and safety guards to prevent damage caused by exposure to asbestos, shall wear respiratory protective equipment (such as a proof stude, etc. with a high efficiency of at least 99.97%) with an examination conducted by the said Corporation, shall restrain the occurrence of dust, operate a ventilation system in the course of treating asbestos. In addition, the said Corporation recommends to obtain and utilize a health care pocketbook when manufacturing or handling asbestos.

(d) Asbestos hazards recognition and asbestos-related regulations;

1) The confirmation of the causal link between the abnormal waste and asbestos exposure is the early 1930s, and the relationship between asbestos, waste cancer, and malicious skin was revealed in the 1950s and the 1960s, and medical opinions on the risk of asbestos were established in the 1960s.

2) Germany recognized the waste cancer caused by asbestos in 1943 as an occupational disease caused by asbestos, and accordingly, started to compensate the asbestos-explosion workers. In the case of the United States, a lot of lawsuits was filed in the 1970s against the asbestos-exploiting manufacturers, and there was a phased regulation on asbestos since 1989. In the case of the North Europe, the two countries began to prohibit the use of asbestos by law from the 1980s.

3) In 1977, the International Cancer Research Institute (IAO), an affiliated body of the International Health Organization (WHO), drafted a report on the exposure of asbestos to asbestos, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) amended the Industrial Accident Compensation Convention in 1980 to include asbestos from asbestos in the available list of diseases, and enacted a treaty related to tin in 1986.

4) From the mid-1980s, studies on the harmful environment, etc. of asbestos-handlings began in Korea. Since the early 1990s, the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Institute affiliated with the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency has investigated the working environment and the health conditions of asbestos-related workers in tin workplaces and conducted an epidemiological investigation on asbestos-related workers and discovered asbestos and asbestos-related patients in the early 1990s.

5) Under the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which was enacted on October 29, 1982, the first statute related to asbestos included asbestos in a specific chemical as stipulated in Article 39 Subparag. 4 of the said Enforcement Rule, the working environment measurement of a workplace where asbestos is treated was legally mandatory. Under Article 43(3) of the said Enforcement Rule, a special health examination was conducted for employees who handle asbestos.

16) Subsequent to the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on July 1990, asbestos was added to harmful substances subject to permission for use. The Enforcement Rule of the Clean Air Conservation Act was enacted on February 1991, and asbestos was included in air pollutants and specific air harmful substances, and the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act was amended on September 9, 191, and asbestos was added to specific wastes. The amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was made on May 1997, adding Cheong asbestos and mosite asbestos was added to prohibited hazardous substances, and asbestos was included in the air pollutants in underground living spaces. From 0th of January 1998, the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was amended on June 20, 199, and the asbestos was removed from 0th of June 20, the Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was amended on more than 10% of asbestos, and the asbestos was removed from 2nd of June 20, 2003.

7) 석면 허용농도는 산업장 근로자를 위한 산업보건기준과 일반 대중을 위한 기 준이 있는데, 미국 환경보호청(EPA)은 일반 대중에게는 모든 석면에 대해 허용농도를 0.01개/ ㎝로 엄격히 규정하고 있고, 산업장 근로자에 대해서는 미국 산업안전보건청 (OSHA)에서는 모든 석면에 대해서 허용농도를 0.1개/ ㎝로 정하고 있으나, 우리나라의 허용기준은 석면의 종류에 따라 2.0개/ ㎝(백석면)부터 0.2개/ ㎠(청석면)까지 기준을 달 리하다가 2008. 9. 18. 산업안전보건법 시행규칙(노동부령 제308호 )을 개정하여 석면 노출에 관한 허용기준을 0.1개/ ㎝로 정하였다 .

8) The increase in injury caused by asbestos in the Republic of Korea is entitled to industrial accident compensation in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act in the case of employees, and in light of the reality that health victims, including residents living around asbestos mines and asbestos factories, were unable to receive compensation and support so as to make it difficult to identify specific persons responsible for the occurrence of health damage caused by asbestos, the State, local governments, and industry sharing benefits from asbestos use for persons who did not receive compensation but who did not have to receive compensation. The Act on Asbestos Injury Relief was enforced on March 22, 2010 and January 1, 2011.

(e) The occurrence and death of asbestosis and malute species of the deceased;

1) On May 11, 2009, the Deceased began with an outpatient medical examination at the Yangsan National University Hospital, and on June 1, 2009, the Deceased was confirmed with asbestosis accompanied by plepleasia and chest pleassying, and with an extension of engine organs. On September 10, 2009, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service decided that the Plaintiff’s application for medical care for pneumoconiosis was class 36 of the disability grade pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation and Insurance Act (or 62 severe disorder in cardiopulmonary function).

2) After that, on November 2012, the deceased continued to have worse symptoms, and was diagnosed with malicious franchising and died on April 25, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the plaintiffs, their children, inherited the deceased’s property.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the U.N. S.

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) Grounds for liability

According to the above facts, asbestos exposure is likely to occur as well as asbestos-related diseases, such as asbestosis, thale, etc., after being exposed to asbestos. Thus, the defendant TNE provides the original high-level workers, etc. with so as to minimize the degree of exposure to asbestos, and provides them with a exhaustr, locker, work clothes, etc., so as to make safe working environment such as the construction of facilities for collecting and discharging asbestos dust, as well as the duty of care to conduct life safety education on the contents of asbestos diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, and preventive laws, etc., even though it was neglected to do so and caused asbestosis caused by negligence caused by the plaintiff's continuous exposure to asbestos dust, and the defendant TNE is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the deceased's tort caused by failure to perform its duty of protection under the labor contract or the deceased's employer's failure to perform his duty of prevention of industrial accidents.

(2) Limitation of liability

On the other hand, in the work site involving asbestos-related risks, the deceased's failure to ensure the safety of the deceased's work, such as the provision of Jinsk, lock, and work clothes to the U.N., and the installation and removal of dust-proof facilities, etc. However, the deceased's failure to make such demand was caused by asbestosis, and thus, the deceased's occurrence and expansion of damages caused by asbestosis, and thus, it is reasonable to take this into account. However, since the percentage of the work site involving asbestos-related risks is considerably set at 10%, the liability of the defendant's work site is limited to 90%.

(b) Scope of damages;

(a) Expenses for treatment: 3,353,020 won;

(2) Hasking expenses: One person per day during the period from January 17, 2013 to April 25, 2013.

Since it is recognized that the opening of the family is necessary, it shall be calculated by the unit price of ordinary wages at that time.

They claim that the deceased’s opinion on asbestosis was necessary to open from June 1, 2009.

the court of the first instance on the commission of physical appraisal to the director of Busan University Hospital and the results of inquiry.

According to Section B, if the doctor H presumed the deceased’s labor ability loss rate to be 100%, then the doctor of the above hospital presumed to be 100%.

u. tin at the Yangsan National University Hospital on June 1, 2009, the deceased's mar was almost fluent with little marbly living together.

One adult woman by January 17, 2013, which was the date of conducting the above appraisal after obtaining the opinion of amnesty;

It is recognized that there is an opinion that it is necessary, but on the other hand, each of the above evidence and evidence.

result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the Busan White Hospital annexed to the court of first instance.

On June 16, 2010, the medical doctor I belonging to the above hospital shall be chlobrid plelle of the deceased's disease on or around June 16, 2010.

The rate of loss of labor ability is 27% presumed to be 27% because it falls under the Disease Control Board, the JIN chronic organ infection B.

during the treatment period, the status of the patient cannot be known and the present status shall continue.

was appraised to the effect that the opening would not be necessary, and such an appraisal of labor capacity.

On June 16, 2010, the above doctor H with respect to the difference in the determination of the actual rate

Recognizing the fact that there was a sudden change in the latter, it can be recognized that the opinion was presented.

Therefore, the above facts alone are sufficient to confirm the status of the deceased directly by the above H.

17. It may be determined at any time as to whether there was a need for care of the Deceased from any time before.

There is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiffs in excess of the above scope of recognition.

his argument is without merit.

* Calculation: 8,062,857 won (i.e., the daily wage unit price of 81,443 won per ordinary person for the first half of 2013)

1 person x 99 days)

(3) Limitation of liability: 90%

* Calculation: 3,017,718 won (=3,353,020 won x 90%)

571 won (=8,062,857 won x 90%, but less than won)

Total amount of property damage 10,274,289 won

(4) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for consideration: The deceased’s age, gender, occupation, family relation, and the course and result of the instant accident;

The extent of the deceased's liability and all other circumstances in the oral proceedings of this case

(2) Amount determined: 60,000,000 won on the deceased.

(5) Inheritance relations

Plaintiffs: 23,424,763 won [the deceased’s property damage 10,274,289 won + The deceased’s consolation money

60,000,000 x 1/3)

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 17, each copy of the judgment of the court of first instance

As a result of the commission of physical appraisal to the director of the Busan 0 Hospital, the Busan Professor of the District Court

Results of the physical appraisal commission to the president and the inquiry results, the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Sub-determination

Therefore, as to Plaintiff B, C, and D’s damages amounting to KRW 23,424,763, as well as KRW 7,672,572, which correspond to their respective shares of inheritance of the deceased, among them, 7,672,572 [i.e., (3,017,718 won + (20,000 won for the deceased above 20,000 won of the deceased quoted in the first instance trial) X 1/3, and less than KRW 500,00) as to the above disaster, it is obvious that the above plaintiffs were served the next day of the complaint of this case as of January 12, 2010, and the damages amounting to KRW 25,75,00,000 from the day following the above accident, to the day of 20,000,000 per annum of the above lawsuit, the remaining portion of the damages amount of KRW 5,75,000 per annum from the day following the judgment of the first instance.

3. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Although Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to guarantee all citizens’ right to live in a healthy and pleasant environment pursuant to Article 35 of the Constitution, Defendant Republic of Korea was negligent in failing to take any measures against asbestos in violation of this duty. Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to compensate for the damage suffered by the deceased.

2) In other words, Defendant Republic of Korea was sentenced to a judgment ordering an asbestos manufacturer to compensate for damage in the United States in 1973, and it was widely known that the risk of asbestos existed and the risk of asbestos was known, but only the provision was made on the working environment measurement of a workplace where asbestos is placed and a special health examination for workers who handle asbestos in the establishment of the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on October 29, 1982, and did not stipulate relevant provisions to mandatory reporting on the installation of a national exhaustor for asbestos factories, the installation of asbestos exhaustor for asbestos dust in the asbestos factories, and the announcement of the legislation by the Republic of Korea was unlawful as it clearly lacks rationality.

또한, 피고 대한민국은 2008. 9. 18.에야 산업안전보건법 시행규칙(노동부령 제 308호)을 개정하여 석면노출에 대한 허용기준을 0.1/ ㎠로 정하고, 2009. 1.부터 석면의 중량이 제품 중량의 0.1% 를 초과하는 건축자재 등 석면함유제품을 제조, 수입하는 것 을 금지하여, 다른 나라에 비하여 석면에 대한 규제가 많이 늦어졌을 뿐 아니라, 석면 피해를 구제하기 위한 석면피해구제법이 2010. 3.에야 제정되어 2011. 1.부터 시행된 점 등의 사정에 비추어 볼 때 , 피고 대한민국은 위험한 물질로부터 국민의 생명을 보 호해야 할 주의의무가 있음에도, 석면노출에 의한 피해를 미연에 방지하지 못한 잘못 이 있다.

3) Defendant Republic of Korea is responsible for supervising that asbestos, which is a harmful substance, should not be treated in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, such as the former Labor Standards Act and the former High Pollution Prevention Act, and for inevitable handling thereof, monitoring and supervising that asbestos is not exposed to an asbestos disease, and even though Defendant Jeju Island has a legal obligation to take measures to prevent pollution against asbestos factories, it is not negligent in taking such measures.

4) Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable to compensate the Deceased for the damages caused by the instant accident based on the above tort liability.

B. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion about legislative omission

Under the parliamentary democracy adopted by the Constitution, the National Assembly is a state agency that takes the role of forming a unified will in accordance with the principle of majority through a debate that reflects a pluralistic opinion or gain, and a member of the National Assembly who participates in the process is not a political responsibility in relation to the whole nation in principle in relation to the legislation and not a legal obligation by responding to individual rights. Thus, even though a member of the National Assembly clearly violates the contents of the legislation, it cannot be deemed as an illegal act under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act unless the National Assembly violates the contents of the legislation clearly, even though the legislative act clearly violates the contents of the Constitution, it cannot be deemed as an illegal act under Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act, and in the same context, even though the State bears specific legislative obligation imposed by the Constitution with respect to a certain matter, it can be recognized only in extremely exceptional cases such as intentional or negligent performance of such legislative obligation with a considerable period of time necessary for the legislation, and if such specific legislative obligation is not recognized, it can not be established as a tort due to omission (see, 3609.4.4).

In light of the above facts and arguments, the study on harmful environment, etc. in Korea began since the mid-1980s, and since the early 1990s, asbestosis patients were discovered, the study on asbestos treatment workers' disease occurred in the workplace, such as conducting surveys on the working environment of asbestos workplaces and workers' health conditions, and reverse academic surveys on asbestos-related workers, etc. Since the early 1990s. ② The defendant Republic of Korea did not legally enforce working environment measurement on the workplace where asbestos is treated in accordance with the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety Act of October 29, 1982. The defendant Republic of Korea continuously prevented the legislation of the Republic of Korea in order of the 190s, from the legislative process of the Republic of Korea, the legislative process of asbestos-related asbestos-related asbestos-related asbestos-related asbestos-related asbestos-related environment-related environment-related environment-related environment-related environment-related environment-related environment-specific factors such as asbestos-related environment-related environment-related environment-related environment-specific and non-specific factors.

C. Determination as to the plaintiffs' assertion on improvement order or non-measures to suspend operation

However, the above statutes cited by the plaintiffs merely stipulate that when employers, factories, and places of business violate the safety and health standards set by the State, the State may take administrative measures for supervision, and it is difficult to view that the State has a specific obligation to supervise the defendant's Republic of Korea not to handle asbestos or to take measures to prevent pollution against asbestos directly from treating asbestos from the above statutes. The environmental right guaranteed by the Constitution is recognized as only where the subject, object, content, method of exercise, etc. of rights can be specifically established (Supreme Court Decision 96Da56153 delivered on July 22, 197) in light of the explicit legal provisions or the purport and reasoning of the relevant statutes, and it cannot be deemed that Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea directly grants specific private rights to the defendant and the defendant's claim for tort liability against the defendant's Republic of Korea is without merit.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) When the production of blue asbestos was prohibited by the public notice given by the Japanese government, Defendant Nice’s establishment was concealed, and it was well aware that there was a fatal asbestos disease when asbestos was exposed to it as a rock material, and in the Republic of Korea, Defendant Nice’s liability is liable to compensate for damages caused by the deceased’s accident in the instant case, based on the tort liability, by the Defendant Nice’s tort liability, on the part of the Defendant’s tort liability, for the purpose of manufacturing the Cheong Asbestos product jointly with ENS and by installing the Cheong Asbestos manufacturing expenses in the instant plant and manufacturing the Cheong Asbestos in the instant plant.

2) As from June 2, 1971, Defendant Nice set up an asbestos manufacturer in the asbestos plant in this case, and the manufacture of luice was suspended on or around September 1978, but it was installed additionally on December 26, 1974, and manufactured lux asbestos by March 26, 1990 and imported it as Japan. The Plaintiff et al. was exposed to asbestos dust in the asbestos plant in this case, and died because asbestos was included in the asbestos dust scattered in the factory in this case, and asbestos was buried in the lux material, and thus, Defendant Nice is liable to compensate for the deceased’s damage caused by asbestos as the manufacturer.

B. Determination as to the assertion of general tort

1) It is insufficient to recognize that asbestos was produced in Japan by only the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to 1971, or that asbestos was exposed to the asbestos emitting materials in Japan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was concealed. Rather, it is recognized that the production of asbestos was prohibited in Japan around 195, and around 197, there was no possibility that it would be no possibility that it would be used by the foreign investors in the process of manufacturing asbestos 1 to 7 years ago, and that there was no possibility that it would be used in the process of manufacturing asbestos 1 to 1 to 9 years ago, and that there was no possibility that it would be used in the process of manufacturing asbestos 1 to 1 to 9 years ago, and that there was no possibility that it would be no possibility that it would be used in the process of manufacturing asbestos 1 to 1 to 9 years ago.

In regard to this, the plaintiffs are sufficiently aware that the possibility of predictability in liability for damages caused by asbestos is not specific awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the malicious species caused by asbestos's exposure, but it is highly likely to cause serious damage to health and life by exposure to tin. Thus, at the time of the establishment of the asbestos plant in this case in 1971, the possibility of predictability of the defendant Bossssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

C. Determination of product liability assertion

In addition, as seen earlier, it is merely an investment in the Bosia, and it is difficult to view that Defendant Bosia directly manufactured asbestos products in the asbestos plant of this case. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiffs, premised on the fact that Defendant Bosia is a manufacturer, is without merit.

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the asbestos products manufactured in the asbestos plant of this case are imported by Japan, etc., and therefore, they are product liability to a person who is engaged in the business of receiving a product can be said to have been reduced by the product manufactured by him. In this case, even if the defendant Nice for the plaintiff's argument that he imported an asbestos product of this case, the product liability of this case is not applied to the damage caused by the product manufactured in the Republic of Korea, regardless of whether he contains the product liability as the manufacturer for the damage caused by the product imported in Japan, it is difficult to view that the damage caused by the product manufactured in the Republic of Korea is product liability. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Lee Il-sung were accepted within the above scope of recognition as reasonable, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea and Nices are all dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the plaintiffs against the defendant Lee Il-sung in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs against the defendant Lee Il-sung in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is in part of the conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance, including the plaintiffs' claims extended in the trial due to the party's course of litigation in the court of first instance, is modified as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, and the part against the defendant Republic of Korea and Nices in the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate as the conclusion is consistent with this. Thus, the plaintiffs' appeals against the above defendants and the claims extended in the court of

Judges

Park Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)

Scene Scene

Kim Jong-chul

Note tin

1) Article 73 (Supervisory Administrative Measures) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4220 of Jan. 13, 1990) (3) Construction of a business employing workers

If water, dormitories, other accessory construction machinery, equipment, raw materials or materials are contrary to the standards determined for safety and health, the Ministry of Social Affairs shall employer.

shall order the suspension or alteration of the use, or other necessary matters, in whole or in part, to the effect that the use is suspended or altered.

2) The Minister of Health and Welfare under Article 6 (Improvement Order) of the former Pollution Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 3078 of Dec. 31, 197), Article 6 (Order of Improvement) of the same Act

If it is deemed that the level of inquiry emission or the degree of noise and vibration is not in compliance with the permissible emission standards as referred to in Article 3, a period shall be

Improvement or replacement of the emission facilities or pollutants emission preventive facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “preventive facilities”) by the owner or manager of such facilities, and other completions thereof.

may order any action required by the court.

Article 7 (Order, etc. for Relocation of Facilities) (1) The Minister of Health and Welfare, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City, or the Do governor

If it is impossible or deemed necessary to carry out an improvement order, the owner or the manager of the facilities shall relocate the factory or the place of business.

(2) With respect to the owner or manager of the factory or the place of business to be relocated under the preceding paragraph, the relocation required therefor.

A loan for all or part of the expenses may be arranged, or tax reduction or exemption may be made under the conditions as prescribed by the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act.

Article 8 (Suspension of Operation) (1) The Minister of Health and Welfare shall order a person who violates the improvement order as prescribed in Article 6, in whole or in part, the emission facilities concerned.

(2) The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City, or the Do Governor may order the suspension of operation of the facilities.

When harm and living environment damage are deemed urgent under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such damage, notwithstanding paragraph (1).

The restriction or suspension of operation hours or other necessary measures may be immediately ordered to the emission facilities.

심급 사건

-부산지방법원 2012.5.10.선고 2009가합26285

부산고등법원 2013.9.24.선고 2012나4343

참조조문