Korean Racing Association (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff and four others (Attorney Hah-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 10, 2018

1. It is confirmed that the liability for damages incurred by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) caused by the Plaintiff’s death of powdered materials or flowers, etc. cultivated by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) due to the Plaintiff’s excessive training of the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) by the Seoul Morse Park, Park, Pium, Piumium, and salt spraying, does not exist in excess of the amount described in the following 2.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall:

(a) Payment of 270,664,00 won to Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and interest thereon at the rate of 5% per annum from May 17, 2016 to October 18, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

B. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 25,296,00, KRW 25,344,000, KRW 41,472,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 41,472,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 147,168,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 5 to each of them, 5% per annum from July 1, 2017 to October 18, 2018, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remaining claims of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); and (b) the remainder is assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff); (c) the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff); and (d) the part arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); (b) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff); (c) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff); and (d) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff); and (c) the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); and (d) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 5.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

○○ principal lawsuit: It is confirmed that there is no damages liability described in the attached Table 1 list against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

○ Counterclaim: The Plaintiff pays to Defendant 1 the amount of KRW 1,366,820,00, KRW 37,950,000, KRW 38,10,000 to Defendant 3, KRW 62,220,00 to Defendant 4, KRW 181,410,00 to Defendant 5, and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of each of the counterclaim to the day of full payment.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that aims at the implementation of the horse and the promotion of marinas, etc., and operates the “Pletz Seoul” (hereinafter “instant horse park”).

B. In the vicinity of the horse park of this case, flower complexes that cultivate flowers and pots, etc. have been developed. The Defendants have operated in the above flower complex for a long time as indicated in the following table.

In the table contained in the main sentence, the Defendant’s 11 △△△△△△ located in the cultivation area of the cultivated variety located in the Defendant’s trade name, approximately approximately 54.9 square meters, including approximately 1,00 square meters, and approximately 554.9 square meters in Yacheon-si ( Address 2 omitted) in Yacheon-si ( Address 2 omitted) in Yacheon-si ( Address 2 omitted), approximately 333 Yongcheon-si in Yancheon-si ( Address 3 omitted), approximately 5 △△△△△△△ 44, Do-si ( Address 4 omitted), including pipes, and approximately 1,361.6 square meters in Yacheon-si in Yacheon-si ( Address 4 omitted), and the head of the Si, Seocheon-si ( Address 5,000, approximately 4,008.6 square meters, and the pipe title, etc.

C. The fire fighters operated by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 are located at a place less than 200 to 300 meters away from the north side of the horse park of this case, as shown in the attached Form 2. The fire fighters operated by Defendant 1 are located in the north north side of the Ye Park of this case, and the degree of 550 meters away from the north side of the horse park of this case.

D. The decentralization and flower farmers operated by the Defendants are in contact with the water love and the water love road passes through the north-west-west from the king of the king of the Republic of Korea to the north-west. The above high speed flows toward the upper speed of the west-west.

E. Around December 2015, the Defendants asserted that the salt distributed by the Plaintiff in order to prevent ice in the horse park of this case was contaminated, and that pots, flowerss, etc. were dead due to the use of polluted groundwater, and filed an application for adjudication of environmental disputes with the Central Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter “Central Environmental Committee”) with the Plaintiff as the respondent.

F. However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the application for adjudication on the above environmental dispute and filed a lawsuit to confirm the existence of the obligation of this case, and according to Article 45 Section 1 of the Environmental Dispute Mediation Act, the financial procedure between the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not proceed any longer.

[Judgment of the court below] The facts without a dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

In a claim for damages due to environmental pollution, the Defendants’ pollutants are discharged from the Plaintiff’s workplace, which is the perpetrator’s place of business, arrived at the damaged area, and there is no proof as to this, but there is no evidence. Furthermore, since the salt distributed to the horse Park Racing of this case is unlikely to be discharged into the ground water through an excellent pipe, it is difficult to deem that the salt distributed to the horse Park Racing of this case was caused by the Defendants’ s dynafing or flowering death. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the high concentration of the salt in the ground water used by the Defendants’ dynafing in the farmland of this case was caused by salting on the roads around the farm site of the Defendants for snow removal every year, such as dynafsium or sium distributed to the Defendant’s dynafing, synafing, or other materials discharged from the Defendant’s living relationship, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, etc.

2) The defendants' assertion

As salt calcium or salt distributed to the racing of the horse park of this case was introduced through underground water to the Defendants’ farm members, and the Defendants died of powder or flowers cultivated by the Defendants, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendants for damages arising therefrom in accordance with Article 44 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy or Article 750 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In general, the burden of proof of causation between a harmful act and the occurrence of losses is borne by the claimant. However, in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to air pollution or water pollution, there are many cases where the company's discharged material indirectly damages by using air or water as a medium, and pollution issues are not clear at the present scientific level. Therefore, it is extremely difficult or impossible to prove one high interest, which constitutes a causal relationship between a harmful act and the occurrence of damages, in a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to a tort, it might result in the victim's refusal of de facto judicial relief due to pollution. On the other hand, it is highly easy for the victim to investigate the cause much more easily than the victim, but it is highly likely that the cause might be concealed, and it is suitable for the company to hold that it is not liable for damages from the harmful act and the occurrence of damages from the place of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da16645, Feb. 26, 200). 206.

2) Whether liability for damages occurred

In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by adding the whole purport of pleadings to each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, it is recognized that the plaintiff reached the ground water around the horse park of this case, and accordingly, the concentration of salt ion in the ground water reached the light park of this case. Accordingly, damage has occurred to kill crops of pots and pots who use it. Thus, unless the plaintiff proves that salt spraying does not affect the increase in the concentration of salt ion in the ground water, or proves that the damage was caused entirely by other causes than the salt spread by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be exempted from its liability.

A) Plaintiff’s salt spraying and flow of groundwater near the instant horse park

In order to prevent sand ice from iceing on the racing and to promote the safety of racing race and walk water, the Plaintiff has spreaded a large quantity of salt (it appears that the Plaintiff used at least 200 tons of salt each year as seen below) on the racing route of the horse Park in this case. Such spraying salt seems to have been flown into ground by naturally cutting it into ground. Since underground water near the Gyeongcheon-si, Gyeongcheon-si, the Defendant’s farm source is flow in the direction of balcheon-do, the Defendant’s farm source is located in the north side of the horse Park in this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that such large quantity of salt flow affected the increase in the concentration of the salt ion of underground water used by the Defendants.

B) The test result of the Defendant’s agricultural source’s underground salt ion concentration concentration test

As of September 1, 2015, the result of the inspection of the concentration of salt ion of groundwater used by the Defendants, and as of October 20, 2015, as of October 20, 2015, as of October 20, 215, as to Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, as of October 20, 2015, Defendant 4 recorded the 266.8mg/L as of May 14, 2015, as of May 14, 2015, as to Defendant 5, 271.2m/L, which is the agricultural water quality standard. The above marth is more than 250mg/L.

C) findings of the Environmental Management Corporation in 2008

The Environmental Management Corporation judged whether the plaintiff's pollution was spread to the surrounding area due to the use of drugs (NaCl) to prevent the ice of the relevant horse park, and investigated the soil and groundwater environment around the relevant horse park from July 23, 2008 to November 23, 2008, for the purpose of presenting the current state of pollution and the source of pollution. The plaintiff presumed the possibility that pollutants caused by salt used on the racing have been cultivated to the ground water and moved to the neighboring area.

D) Progress of the preceding case

(1) Around 2008, a person who was operating a farmer on the north-west side of the horse park of this case, was the respondent for the same reason as the Defendants of this case, and filed an application for the adjudication of environmental disputes on the central environment.

(2) In the above central environmental finance case, on March 2013, the National Institute of Agricultural Research of the National Institute of Agricultural Research of the Korea National Institute of Agricultural Research presented an expert opinion on the following: “In addition, the National Institute of Agricultural Research of the National Institute of Agricultural Research is presumed to have inflicted damage on agricultural products due to the pollution of groundwater caused by salt in a nearby horse park as a result of on-site investigations and meetings by visiting the powder and flower farmers in the Guamam-dong, and as a result, it is presumed that the pollution of groundwater caused by the contamination of groundwater caused by salt in a nearby horse park, and the possibility of water pollution caused by snow-making calcium, fertilizer, and agricultural chemicals used in a road other than salt used in the Mama Park Park Park Park Park Park-si, and it is deemed to be low when considering the quantity of water used or the concentration of ingredients.” In addition, on around April 2013, the National Institute of Agricultural Research of the National Institute of Agricultural Research is presumed to have inflicted damage on agricultural crops.”

(3) On April 12, 2013 and June 20, 2013, the Central Environment Level used salt in a considerably large quantity (231~361 ton) each year after the opening of the relevant horse park; ② The concentration of salt ion in groundwater to be used for the purpose of decentralization farmers is 246-427 g/L, and the concentration of salt ion in groundwater to be used for the purpose of water supply exceeds the standards for agricultural water quality of the 386-4,087 g/L; the concentration of salt ion in groundwater in the race track is considerably higher than 341-345 g/L; ④ the presumption that groundwater pollution in the area where salt ion in the race track is found to have been damaged to the area near the race track; ④ the presumption that groundwater pollution in the area where salt ion in the pots and pots had been damaged to the area where it is discovered that it would have been damaged to the area adjacent to the soil environment management corporation.

(4) On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit to confirm the existence of an obligation against the said applicant for adjudication, and the said applicant for adjudication filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s salt spraying (the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment on November 27, 2015 (the main claim), 52806 (Counterclaim)) to the effect that the Plaintiff is liable for damages (the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision on January 23, 2017). The appellate court of the first instance also rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation to recognize the Plaintiff’s liability for damages on January 23, 2017, and the decision in lieu of the said conciliation became final and conclusive as it is (hereinafter in this case, referred to as “first instance”).

E) Results of a report on impact assessment services on groundwater in 2016

(1) In the preceding case and the Defendants’ application for adjudication on the Central Environmental Authority, there were many civil petitions claiming to death with respect to crops by spraying the Plaintiff’s salt from the subdivisions and flower farmers located around the Gyeong Park. Accordingly, on March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract for the “Newmp Seoul Groundwater Impact Investigation” with Simpak Seoul Groundwater Impact Assessment Co., Ltd., a water resources development project and environmental impact assessment with a view to disclosing the causes of pollution with respect to underground water around the Gyeong Park Park Park in the appellate trial on the preceding case.

(2) From Apr. 1, 2016 to Nov. 26, 2016, YY Co., Ltd.: (a) conducted basic surveys, repair geological surveys (i.e., observation surveys on groundwater, exploration of underground structures, physical exploration, precise drilling surveys, installation of observation stations, measurement and current status; (b) analysis of crops’s outstanding ingredients; (c) water quality analysis, water pumping tests, administration tests, etc.); (d) formulation of measures for groundwater pollution assessment and countermeasures; and (e) written a report on the impact assessment of the Seoul Groundwater Impact assessment (hereinafter “the instant report”). On Nov. 2016, 201.

(3) The instant report pointed out that the Plaintiff’s salt spraying was mainly caused by the Plaintiff’s pollution of underground water near the relevant Gyeong Park, and its key contents are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 8.1. 오염원인 ▶ 충적층 및 암반 지하수의 전기전도도(EC)의 등치선도 분석결과, 남쪽 경마장 부지 인근을 중심으로 1,000㎲/cm 이상의 높은 값을 보이며 북쪽방향으로 갈수록 농도가 낮아지는 경향을 나타내고 있고, 1차(7월)분석에 비해 2차(9월)분석 결과가 전기전도도(EC) 값이 2,000㎲/cm 이상의 높은 지역은 좁아지거나 없어지고 있으나, EC값 1,000㎲/cm 이상의 오염지역은 폭넓게 확대되는 경향을 나타내고 있다. 이러한 결과로부터 오염원이 경마장 트랙을 중심으로 북쪽으로 확산되어 가는 경향을 확인하였다. ▶ 파이퍼 다이어그램(Piper diagram) 분석 결과, Ca-Cl(NO3) 유형이 50% 이상 높게 분포하고 있어 과업 지역은 농업활동이나 생활하수 등의 인위적인 오염원에 의해 영향을 받은 것으로 판단된다. ▶ 1차 및 2차 수질분석 결과 지하수의 이온분포는(염소, 나트륨, 칼슘, 양이온, 음이온 및 TDS), 경마장 인근에서 농도가 높게 나타나고 북쪽으로 갈수록 낮아지는 경향을 보이고 있다. 또한 모든 이온의 농도가 경마장 부지에서 멀어질수록 낮아지는 경향을 뚜렷이 보이고 있고, 염소이온의 분포가 250mg/L(생활용수 및 농업용수 기준)을 상회하는 지역이 민원발생 지역과 대부분 중복되어 나타난다. 또한 질산성질소의 농도 분포는 모두 생활용수 및 농·어업용수 수질기준인 50mg/L 이하로 나타나고 있고 또한 지역적인 분포특성이 나타나지 않고 있다. 경마장 트랙 주변의 오염원이 북쪽으로 확산되어 가는 경향을 파악할 수 있으며, 오염원이 염소와 관련성이 있을 것으로 판단된다. ▶ 질소-산소 및 염소 동위원소 분석결과 오염의 원인은 농가에서 살포된 비료 및 분뇨 등과는 연관이 없을 것으로 추정되며, 브롬-요오드 분석결과 과업지역 인근의 지하수 오염은 염수기원(소금)의 영향으로 판단된다. 또한 작물 내 미량원소 분석결과 오염된 시료의 염소 농도가 높은 값을 나타내고 있어 염소이온이 식물피해의 직접적인 원인으로 판단된다.

(4) In addition, based on the results of the groundwater model analysis, the instant report evaluated the scope of groundwater pollution as follows, in a city where salted 250 g/L was distributed in salted 250 g/L, and as seen in the foregoing 1.C., as seen in the foregoing 1.C., the powder and flower farmers operated by the Defendants are located within the scope of pollution impact.

A person shall be appointed.

3) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) The Plaintiff asserted that salt is not likely to flow into groundwater, since sand from racing roads is purified and purified and disposed of by dilution, and then it is released through excellent pipes.

However, salt spraying on the earth's surface seems to be capable of flowing into groundwater by moving it underground for a long time, and in particular, the report of this case prepared according to the order of the plaintiff was identified as a result of the investigation of TV-CAMERA, and the possibility of spreading pollutants through sewage pipes. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's above assertion in light of the fact that the long-term monitoring inspection to verify groundwater pollution through sewage pipes (e.g., the concentration of hydrogens) and the relationship with the pollution of groundwater should be examined, and measures to repair and reinforce sewage pipes should be taken. In addition, when the repair reinforcement is made, it is determined that the sewage pipe should select and construct as a material with strong resistance power to salt (see, e.g., the report of this case), unlike the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's above assertion in light of the fact that there is considerable level of groundwater pollution in the process of reprocessing salt and discharging it into mass.

B) The Plaintiff asserts that there was an increase in salt ion concentration due to other causes, such as snow removal agents. However, as acknowledged earlier, it appears that the main cause of the increase in salt ion concentration of groundwater near the Gyeong Park Park in this case appears to be salt scattered by the Plaintiff. Even if other factors, such as snow removal and fertilizer, were affected by a certain portion as alleged by the Plaintiff, the degree of contribution seems not to be significant in light of the overall circumstances as seen earlier. Moreover, this does not conflict with the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendants, and thus, it cannot be said that there is a ground to deny the Plaintiff’s liability for damages.

C) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the salt ion concentration of groundwater used by the Defendants does not exceed 250 g/L, which is the standard value for agricultural water, or only exceeds it, and that it is difficult to deem that the above salt ion concentration had influenced the Defendant’s agricultural product’s death cultivated.

In addition to the aforementioned evidence, it is acknowledged that the Defendant’s dump concentration of underground water used by certain Defendants in pots or flowers farmers had been measured below 250mg/L, which is the water quality standard for agricultural water. However, the above water quality standard for agricultural water is based on rice calculated based on rice, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ dump concentration of underground water around the horse park is applied as it is even to dump or roots, which is considerably lower than the water quality standard for agricultural water. Meanwhile, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ dump concentration of underground water in light of the following circumstances: (a) the progress of the preceding case and as revealed through the instant report, continuously shows high level of dump ion concentration of underground water around the horse park; (b) the Plaintiff provided new groundwater dump farmers in around 2015, but it was difficult to view that the Defendants’ dump concentration was considerably higher than the water quality standard for agricultural water in light of the following circumstances: (c) the Plaintiff’s new dump.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendants for damages under Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Calculation of damages

1) In light of the aforementioned evidence, witness’s testimony, appraiser’s testimony, and appraiser’s fact-finding results of this court’s fact-finding with respect to appraiser’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, considering the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of damages of the Defendants on the basis of the following: (a) the calculation of basic amount by the Defendant as indicated below according to the appraiser’s each appraisal results, or the amount of support, revenue, damage rate, cost of avoidance, and waste disposal cost, and thus, it seems that there is considerable error in the overall calculation of the amount of damages. Accordingly, the amount

(4) The annual amount of damage (1), 1, 353, 320, 00.5 27, 160, 160, 000, 160, 160, 000, 160, 160, 100, 000, 000, 200, 360, 160, 000, 20636, 240, 40, 240, 240, 30, 240, 37, 200, 300, 37, 2000, 300, 37, 2000, 300, 400, 37, 2000, 300, 400, 400, 400, 4008, 3008, 3604, 2008

Note 3) Annual amount of damages

2) Meanwhile, Defendant 1 asserted that all of the basic amount of KRW 1,353,320,000 as its amount of damages, but the above amount is merely a basic material for calculating the amount of damages, and cannot be recognized as Defendant 1’s damages. In addition, Defendant 1 asserted that the amount of damages should be recognized as having been paid KRW 5 million as the expenses for powder, and KRW 8,500,000,000 as groundwater development costs. However, the evidence submitted by Defendant 1 alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Defendant 1’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's damage decentralization and flowers do not exist, and the appraiser only calculates the basic amount and the amount of the adjustment and derived the result of appraisal by determining the damage rate at will, based on the plaintiff's assertion, the above appraisal result is unreasonable.

However, appraiser's appraisal result should be respected unless there is obvious error such as appraisal method or rationality in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da67602, 67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009; 2009Da84608, 84615, 84622, 84639, Jan. 12, 2012). The appraiser calculated the basic amount of damages in this case based on the photograph of the damaged material in his custody, the price assessment report, and the account ledger reported to the tax office. The remaining defendants calculated the basic amount of damages in this case, based on the appraisal result of the growing facilities (a plastic houses) published by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the number of seeds purchased from seeds and seedlings companies, the ratio of damages applied to each of the above raw material or the ratio of damages applied to the calculation of the total amount of damages (the same applies to each of the above natural material and the calculation of damages).

2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the cost of avoiding damage by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 and the loss equivalent to the waste disposal cost by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 are not proximate or that the method of calculating the cost is unreasonable.

In order to reduce salt damage, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 leased and cultivated a separate farm, and thereafter sold it after further cultivation. Since the said Defendants run wholesale and retail businesses, such as those in the vicinity of the horse park of this case, it is deemed that there is a need to move cultivated products to their existing source near major selling places, such as Seoul and Gyeonggi, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the cost of avoiding the above damage is not reasonable. Furthermore, considering the above circumstances, the appraiser calculated the damage ratio of Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 as lower than that of other Defendants. Moreover, as long as the damage ratio of the said Defendants and the damage ratio of other Defendants are recognized, the occurrence of waste disposal expenses for the dead flowers can be recognized, and the method of calculating waste disposal expenses or the amount thereof cannot be seen as contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

C. Limitation on liability

In addition to the aforementioned evidence, the defendants were aware of the following circumstances that can be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the progress of the preceding case and the spread of the plaintiff’s salt. The defendants appear to have been aware of the increase in salt ion concentration of underground water near the horse Park in this case. The defendants continued to expand the damage of crops without taking any measures to prevent any particular damage even after being aware of the above circumstances; ② in cultivating and cultivating powder and flowers, not only groundwater water quality but also soil, temperature, fertilizer, blight, etc., impact on their growth and death. ③ The damages amount recognized above are estimated based on the results of the examination of evidence and indirect facts. ④ The defendants' damages amount was calculated based on the results of the examination of evidence and the whole indirect facts. ④ Since the defendants spread calcium in excess of a large amount every year, it is reasonable to limit the damage liability of the defendants to the extent that it is difficult for the damage compensation system of the plaintiff to exclude the damage liability of the damage.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to Defendant 1 6,60,00 won (i.e., 67,60,000 won) for 270,64,00 won (i.e., 676,60,000 won x 0.4) calculated on the basis of the Plaintiff’s rate of liability from 2014 to 2015, for 30,000 won (i.e., 67, 60, 00 won) and for 30,000 won (i., 40,000 won) calculated on May 17, 2016 to the Plaintiff; (ii) for 30,000 won (i.e., 60, 30,000 won) calculated on the following day; (ii) for 30,000 won (i., 40,000 won) calculated on the basis of the Plaintiff’s liability to compensate for damages; (iii) for 6360, 206360,20630,20,20630.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim and the defendants' counterclaim are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of them is accepted. Since the remaining main claim and counterclaim are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges O Sang-sung (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-sung

1) Article 45 (Relation to Lawsuits) ① When a lawsuit on a case for which an arbitration has been filed is pending, the court of the lawsuit may suspend the proceedings until the arbitration is made. ② In the absence of a suspension of the proceedings under paragraph 1, the arbitration committee shall suspend the proceedings of the relevant case. ③ The arbitration committee may, by means of a ruling, suspend the proceedings where a lawsuit on the same or a similar case for which multiple persons are involved for the same cause as a case for which arbitration has been requested is pending.

2) Article 44 (Strict Liability for Damage by Environmental Pollution) (1) Where any environmental pollution or environmental damage has occurred, the person who has caused such environmental pollution or environmental damage shall compensate for such damage.

3) The result of the appraisal against Defendant 1 was calculated on the whole period of damage, while the result of the appraisal against Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 was calculated on the basis of annual damages. The “annual damages” constitutes only Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5.