2010 Gohap 23633 Damage, Claim

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

1. H stock company;

2. Korea;

3. I stock company;

March 29, 2012

May 10, 2012

1. Defendant H Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff A KRW 45,024,104, KRW 68,958,152, KRW 39,00,00 to Plaintiff C, KRW 21,00,00 to Plaintiff C, KRW 57,512,479, KRW 37,008, and KRW 37,008,319 to Plaintiff E, respectively, and KRW 5% per annum from January 14, 201 to May 10, 2012, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against Defendant H Co., Ltd. and their claims against Defendant Republic of Korea and I Co., Ltd are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant H Co., Ltd. is ten percent, and the remaining nine are borne by the plaintiffs, and the remaining nine are borne by the defendant H Co., Ltd., and the portion arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Korea, and the defendant 1 Co.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs A 85,961,749 won, 115,898,256 won, 110,000,000 won to the plaintiff C, 60,000 won to the plaintiff D, 194,585,556 won, 196 won to the plaintiff E, 38,571,428 won, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no conflict between Gap evidence 1 through 12 (including each number, if applicable, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the court's entrustment of physical examination to the chief of the J Hospital in this Court. Eul's violation of this Court's provision of evidence 10 does not believe that it is part of the evidence 10.

A. The relationship between the parties

(1) On February 23, 197, Defendant H Co., Ltd. established K on October 17, 1969 and changed to the current trade name on or around December 29, 199 after conversion into L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant H”), and newly constructed a factory producing asbestos products on or around October 1969, Busan East-gu M (Sgu M; hereinafter the same shall apply) (hereinafter “the asbestos factory in this case”) around 1969, and closed the asbestos factory in this case from March 26, 199, by manufacturing asbestos products, such as asbestos company, asbestospos, asbestos tape, asbestos tape, asbestos premium, etc., and then discontinued the asbestos product from the factory in this case to the end of March 26, 1990.

(2) On April 9, 1896, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. was established as a stock company on April 9, 1986, and was changed into the current trade name on around 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and produced asbestos products in the Republic of Korea on June 2, 1971, by establishing a P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”).

(3) Defendant H and P produced asbestos products by being transferred from Defendant I to the production technology of asbestos products, such as asbestos eggs, and subsequently, P was merged into Defendant H on October 10, 1985 after being changed to Q&A around October 1981.

(4) From February 1971 to June 1975, Plaintiff A served in the Cheong/White Asbestos Department of the instant asbestos plant, and Plaintiff B served in the White Asbestos Storage System of this case from December 1976 to December 3, 1984.

(5) The network R worked for the instant asbestos plant from October 19, 1989 to May 10, 1991. The Plaintiff C is the husband of the network R and the Plaintiff D are the children of the network.

(6) From July 1979 to May 1989, the deceased S was living in the company while serving as the on-site function and management staff at the asbestos clearance plant of this case. The plaintiff E is the Dong S's wife, the plaintiff F, and G are children of the networkS.

B. Working environment, etc. of the instant tin factory

(1) Until now, asbestos storage plant in Korea has almost 14 small and medium-sized businesses with less than 30 workers, and it is known that 9 small and medium-sized businesses in Busan, 2 small and medium-sized businesses in Ulsan, 1 medium-sized businesses in Ulsan, and 1 medium-sized businesses in Chungcheongbuk are distributed. Among them, the asbestos storage plant in this case operated by Defendant H is the number of workers and production.

(2) From December 1969 to March 26, 1990 in the asbestos plant of this case, Defendant H 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) In around 1976, Defendant H provided workers with a stringer without a stringer, and around 1976, he provided a stringer with a stringer, but did not temporarily replace the stringer with a stringer in charge of the string function. During the work process, Defendant H did not provide a stringer to the workers in charge of the duties required to be cut off, and only provided a general working clothes made in general, not a working corridor-proof work clothes, but a general work clothes made in general, not a working corridor-proof work clothes, and that asbestos dust dust was scattered at all times at the workplace due to the failure to install or operate a stringer and a stringer in the workplace.

(4) In addition, Defendant H’s implementation of safety education to the employees to wear dust-proof sckes and sckes by making use of the time, such as bed, but Defendant H did not provide specific safety education on diseases or methods of preventing exposure to asbestos.

(c) Diseases caused by asbestos and asbestos;

(1) In general, asbestos generally refers to the term “induculation of fiber infections” in its own connection. Asbestos is a chemical compound in the fiber shape, which has been easily raised and strong, with a diameter of 0.02 to 0.03M, and can be spreaded in the ceiling, and it is often used in a place that requires combustibility, resistantity, and chemical combustibility due to heat resistance, combustibility, and combustibility. In general, asbestos is diverse and the kinds of asbestos are more than 30 square meters, but three luculation asbestos and each island, which are the system of lucularine, are commercial importance, and asbestos is produced worldwide at least 95% of the asbestos.

(2) White asbestos may be cut off with a lush, sl, and solid fiber, but even if each lux is in a solid state. For this reason, lux asbestos is often stuck to the upper part of the luxine, but each lux asbestos, such as blue asbestos, amosite asbestos, and a luxite, is low at the luxal resistance, and the luxial environment of the luxary cell remains for a long time, thereby causing damage to luxary cells. However, it is harmful to all kinds of asbestos, including lux asbestos, and all kinds of asbestos, including luxal cells, are the cause of luxal diseases.

(3) Asbestos may cause a fatal disease, such as waste cancer, asbestosis, heavy string, etc., even if there is no later exposure once again, even if there is no later exposure. A representative disease caused by asbestos has an asbestosis, a kind of crypam cancer in asbestosis, such as asbestosis, waste cancer, and cryp cancer. Otherwise, asbestos has been clearly known health disorder, such as crypitis, disposal type, expansion of machinery site, waste collection, waste collection, head cancer, cypump cancer, and workplace cancer. In addition, some researchers regard it as an cypical substance, such as crypump cancer, cryp cancer, body cancer, and cypump cancer.

(4) 석면폐증(Asbestosis)은 석면을 취급한 적이 있는 환자나 그 가족 또는 석면을 취급하는 작업장 부근의 주민 등에게서 발생할 수 있는 미만성, 간질성 폐질환으로, 공기 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 피폭된 양과 기간, 그리고 작업장의 환경에 따라서 발생율이 달라지는데, 석면을 채굴하는 광부보다는 석면을 가공하고 섬유화시키는 과정에 종사하는 사람에게서 더 많이 관찰된다. 석면폐증의 감별진단으로는 폐 섬유화를 유발하는 모든 질환을 고려하여야 하고, 심한 석면폐증에서는 호흡부전, 폐성심 등이 나타날 수도 있다.

(5) A malicious fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor, etc., which is covered by the surface of the heart, such as a brush fluoring body, and the heart fluoring body. The development cause of the 80-90% of the asbestos is asbestos, and asbestos fibers is caused by fluoring the waste and embling or breaking the waste, and the asbestos fibres within 8 months from the discovery of very fluorous cancer, and at least half of the asbestos were dead. The diving period between the first exposure to asbestos and the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral is known to be 20 to 40 years, and it may also be caused by exposure to asbestos of a short or low concentration of the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor.

Although the malutism may occur by any cause other than asbestos (radiation, virus, etc.), the possibility is only 10 to 20%, due to such exceptional possibility, the radiation and salutism (SV40) virus may be included. However, in the case of radiation, there are cases where serious salute occurs on the part where the radiation was investigated from among those who received radiation treatment in the process of treating salpha cancer, and in particular, in the case of salutism (SV40), it cannot be the cause for general public who do not receive a long-term radiation examination, and in the case of salutism (SV40), it is difficult to see that the outbreak of the malute type by the above virus itself is a realistic cause for the occurrence of the malute type to general public who do not have received a special radiation treatment. Ultimately, the cause of the malute type is the only cause for exposure to asbestos, so there is no other realistic cause for exposure to asbestos.

(6) If asbestos is exposed once, the disease continues to progress without being exposed thereafter (the locker is ordinarily about 5 to 30 years). It is important that the Corporation must wear appropriate internal chemical protection devices and safety decorations to prevent damage caused by asbestos exposure, and the Corporation shall wear respiratory protective devices (the bruptor, etc. fitted with a high-efficiency 9.97% or more of the said Corporation’s examination), shall restrain dust occurrence, and shall operate a ventilation system at the time of asbestos treatment. In addition, the Corporation recommends manufacturing or handling asbestos to obtain and utilize a health management pocketbook when it is engaged in business.

(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 and the lung cancer and the malutronum was revealed in the 1950s and the 1960s, and medical opinions on the risk of asbestos were established in the 1950s and 1960s.

(2) Germany recognized the waste cancer caused by asbestos in 1943 as an occupational disease caused by asbestos, and accordingly, paid compensation to asbestos-exploit workers. In the case of the United States, a lot of lawsuits have been filed in the 1980s since the 1970s against asbestos manufacturers, which led to the increase in product liability lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers. Since the 1989s, asbestos was subject to phased regulation, and asbestos use began to be prohibited by law in the North Europe countries since the 1980s.

(3) The International Cancer Research Institute, an affiliated body of the International Health Organization (WHO), prepared a report on the exposure of asbestos to asbestos in 1977, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) amended that asbestos included asbestos in the compensation list among the industrial accident compensation agreements in 1980, and enacted the Convention on Asbestos in 1986.

(4) From the mid-1980s, studies on the harmful environment, etc. of asbestos-handling workers have started in Korea, and since the beginning of the 1990s, UResearch Institute affiliated with T&A has investigated the working environment of asbestos-related workers and the health conditions of asbestos-related workers, and around that time, studies on the disease of asbestos-handling workers, such as conducting an epidemiological investigation on asbestos-related workers, and discovery of asbestosis and asbestos-related patients, began in full order since the beginning of the 1990s.

(5) Under the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act enacted on October 29, 1982, the first statute related to asbestos included asbestos in a specific chemical stipulated in Article 39 subparag. 4 of the said Enforcement Rule, so a working environment measurement for a workplace handling asbestos was legally obligated, and a special health examination was conducted for employees handling asbestos pursuant to Article 43(3) of the said Enforcement Rule.

(6) After that 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 191, 191, and asbestos was included in air pollutants, and the Enforcement Decree of the Wastes Control Act was amended on September 1991, and asbestos was added to specific wastes. The amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Occupational Safety and Health Act on May 1997 added Cheong asbestos and mosite asbestos to prohibited hazardous substances, such as manufacturing, etc. The Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was enacted on January 1, 1998, and the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was amended on June 1, 199, and the asbestos was also included in air pollutants in underground living space. Since the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act was amended on June 20, 203, the asbestos was removed by more than 10% of asbestos-containing products, and the asbestos was removed by 20% of asbestos-containing products.

(7) The asbestos permissible concentration has a standard for industrial health standards for workers in the industrial place and the general public. The U.S. Environmental Protection Office (EPA) strictly provides that all asbestos shall be 0.01/cm to the general public. For workers in the industrial place, the U.S. Industrial Safety and Health Office (OSHA) sets the permissible concentration for all asbestos at 0.1/cm. However, the Korean standards vary between 2,000 cm and 0.2/cm (Cheong asbestos) depending on the type of asbestos, while revising the Enforcement Rule of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (Ordinance No. 308) on September 18, 2008, set the permissible level for exposure to asbestos to 0.1/c.

(8) On the contrary to the fact that the number of damages caused by asbestos in Korea increases and employees are entitled to industrial accident compensation in accordance with the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in light of the fact that victims of health caused by environmental exposure, 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 harm caused by asbestos, the State, local governments, and industry sharing benefits from the use of asbestos to persons who did not receive compensation but who did not receive compensation, together with financial resources. The Act on Asbestos Injury Relief was enacted on March 22, 2010 and enforced January 1, 2011.

E. The occurrence of asbestos-related diseases of Plaintiffs A, B, R, and land S

(1) On January 8, 2009, the Plaintiff A was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos and other optical fibres, i.e., asbestosis and other optical fibres, and with symptoms, such as the current difficulty and continued respiratory, continuous respiratory emission, scarcity, chest pain, and scarcity, etc. The physical examination results lead to a state where, as a result of the physical examination, the Plaintiff A suffered chronic pulmon disorder due to the pulmonary change in the given pulmonary disorder, repeated aggravation of pulmonary cancer, malicious scarcity, etc. The disease at the Plaintiff A is a permanent disability, and is presumed to be 45% of the injury to Mabrid Labor Loss Evaluation Table and the relevant disease V-C, and the labor ability loss rate.

(2) On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff B started outpatients at the Yangsan National University Hospital, and received opinions on asbestosis and expansion of engine organs on December 7, 2009. The results of physical evaluation show symptoms, such as the difficulty of respiratory and continuous respiratorys, the emission of home, and chest pains. As a result of the physical evaluation, Plaintiff B’s above disease is a permanent disability, and is likely to cause lung cancer, malicious fright, etc., repeated aggravation of symptoms, and repeated aggravation of symptoms. The Plaintiff B’s above disease is presumed to have been presumed to have been 45% of the loss rate of labor ability, which falls under Category IV-C of the C of the Evaluation Table on the Loss of Work for the Plaintiff’s Pneumoconiosis. In addition, the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service decided that Plaintiff’s pneumoconiosis application for medical treatment pursuant to the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act grade F15, March 9, 2010 (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”).

(3) On October 29, 2009, R was diagnosed as waste cancer at the Mandong University Hospital, and was hospitalized as of October 29, 201 in accordance with the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service’s decision, and died of an acute respiratory injury due to the pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary Z. On December 14, 2011, Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service paid KRW 107,058,280 to

(4) From around 2005, the deceased S was diagnosed with the pneumoconiosis caused by asbestos and other optical fibers, i.e., asbestos and other optical fibres in a V hospital from around September 24, 2008, and died of a multi-pact long-term corrosion caused by pneumoconiosis.

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant H

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) Grounds for liability

According to the above facts, since asbestos exposure is likely to occur as well as asbestos-related diseases, such as asbestosis, waste cancer, and malute, etc., at the time of exposure, Defendant H is not only to create a safe working environment by providing workers, such as Plaintiff A, B, and network R, and network S with straw, to minimize the degree of exposure to asbestos, and to install facilities discharging asbestos by collecting dust, but also to provide workers with specific safety education on the contents of diseases caused by exposure to asbestos exposure, prevention, etc., although the duty of care was exercised, Defendant H was neglected to prevent the occurrence of asbestosis and waste cancer due to negligence caused by the continuous exposure to asbestos dust, and Defendant H was also liable for damage caused to Plaintiff A, B, and network and users due to nonperformance of the duty of protection under the labor contract or due to nonperformance of the duty of protection under the labor contract, or due to the Plaintiff A, B, and network R and network, and network R and network damage caused by each of the following accidents.

(2) Limitation of liability

On the other hand, the plaintiff A, B, and network R, and network S should wear the dustproof strings provided in the work site accompanied by asbestos in order to ensure the safety of the defendant H by properly wearing the dustproof strings, by demanding the provision of fire-proof lock and work clothes, installation of dust-proof facilities, removal of dust, etc., and by neglecting the above demand. Such errors by the plaintiff A, B, and network R, and network S were caused by asbestosis or the expansion of damage caused by waste cancer, and thus, they should be considered in light of the above facts. Since the ratio is reasonable to be 10%, the liability of the defendant H is ultimately limited to 90%, respectively.

B. Scope of damages against Plaintiff A

(a) Actual income: 5,213,018 won;

(1) Gender: The period of operation of WB and the number of days of birth: From January 8, 2009, which is the first day of treatment of Plaintiff A, until October 25, 201, which the said Plaintiff seeks from October 25, 201 to July 4, 201, and the second day of each month.

(3) Income: The market wage rate per day for an ordinary urban part for each period (the following table):

(4) The latter disability: the loss of 45% on a permanent basis.

(5) The current price at the time of an accident: 5,213,018 won (the following table):

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Expenses for treatment: 369,320 won;

(3) Limitation of liability: 90%

* Calculation: KRW 332,388 (= KRW 369,320 x 90%) Property damage totaling KRW 5,024,104,104 (= KRW 5,213,018, X90, less than KRW 90; hereinafter the same shall apply) property damage in daily income (=369,320 x 90%)

(4) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for consideration: All the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Plaintiff’s age, gender, occupation, family relationship, the background and degree of the instant accident, the injury and degree of disability of the Plaintiff, the degree of responsibility of the Plaintiff A, and the fact that the Plaintiff A did not seek future medical expenses.

(2) Amount determined: 40,000,000 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, rules of experience, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 10, results of physical appraisal of the J Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, Defendant H is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 45,024,104 (=property damage of KRW 5,024,104 + solatium of KRW 40,00,00) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act until May 10, 2012, which is the day following the day on which Defendant H served a duplicate of the complaint of this case, as sought by the said Plaintiff after the date of the accident.

C. Scope of damages against Plaintiff B

(a) Actual income: 79,378,436 won;

(1) Gender: X 2 Operation period and number of days: From August 13, 2009, which is the starting date of treatment of Plaintiff B, to December 7, 2009, which the said Plaintiff seeks from December 7, 2009 until April 14, 2021, and 22 days each month.

(3) Income: The market wage rate per day for an ordinary urban part for each period (the following table):

(iv) Ex post facto disability: Loss of labor capacity by 45 percent permanently;

(5) The current price at the time of an accident: 79,378,436 won (the following table):

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Limitation of liability: 90%

* Calculation: lost income 71,440,592 won (=79,378,436 won x 90 per cent)

(3) Deduction: 42,482,440 won for temporary disability compensation received by the Plaintiff B from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service shall be deducted from the actual income of Plaintiff B (the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff).

*: 28,958,152 won (=71,440,592 won - 42,482,440 won)

(4) Consolation money,

(1) Reasons for consideration: All the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, including the Plaintiff B’s age, gender, occupation, family relationship, the background and degree of the accident in this case, the injury and degree of disability of Plaintiff B, the degree of responsibility of Plaintiff B, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation paid disability compensation money to Plaintiff B, and the fact that Plaintiff B did not seek future medical expenses.

(2) Amount determined: 40,000,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, empirical rule, entry of Gap evidence 3, result of a request for physical appraisal to the Director of J Hospital in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

(5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, Defendant H is obligated to pay the Plaintiff B damages totaling KRW 68,958,152 (=28,958,152 + consolation money + KRW 40,00,000) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from January 14, 2011 to May 10, 2012, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the said Plaintiff, and it is obviously reasonable for Defendant H to resist the scope of his/her duty as to the scope of his/her duty.

(c) Scope of compensation for damage related to the network R;

(1) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for consideration: All circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the age, gender, occupation, network and the relationship of Plaintiff C and D, the background and result of the instant accident, the degree of responsibility for the network R, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service paid medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits for the network R, etc.

(2) The determined amount.

R: 40,000,000

Plaintiff C: 15,000,000 won

Plaintiff D: 5,000,000 won

(2) Inheritance relationship

Plaintiff C: 24,000,000 won (i.e., consolation money of 40,000,000 won x 3/5)

Plaintiff D: 16,00,000 won (the deceased’s consolation money of 40,000,000 won X 2/5)

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant H is obligated to pay Plaintiff C the total sum of KRW 39,00,000 in inheritance amounting to KRW 24,000,000 in inheritance + KRW 15,000,000 in inheritance + KRW 15,000 in inheritance + KRW 16,00,000 in inheritance + KRW 5,000 in inheritance + KRW 5,000 in inheritance + KRW 000 in inheritance) as well as damages for each of them after the date of the above accident, which is obvious from January 14, 201 to May 10, 201, where it is deemed reasonable for Defendant H to dispute over the scope of its performance obligation as requested by the above Plaintiffs as to the date of delivery of a copy of complaint of this case from January 14, 201 to May 10, 2012.

(d) Scope of compensation for damage related to the network S;

(a) Net earnings (net S): 64,099,550 won;

① Gender: Male and date of birth: YB operation period and number of days: From October 9, 2009, the date of death of the network S until June 5, 2015, which is 60 years of age, and each 22th day of each month (the above plaintiffs seek lost income from May 6, 2008, before the date of death of the network S, but there is no evidence to prove that the network S received hospitalized treatment or lost labor ability before the date of death, the above plaintiffs' above plaintiffs' assertion is rejected).

3. Income: The market wage rate per day for an ordinary urban part for a period of time (the following table):

(4) The current price at the time of an accident: 64,099,550 won (the following table):

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Wronter treatment costs: 15,377,249 won;

(3) Limitation of liability: 90%

* Calculation: lost income 57,689,595 won (=64,099,550 won x 90%)

Walking treatment costs of KRW 13,839,524 (=15,377,249 x 90%) Property damage totaling KRW 71,529,119

(4) Consolation money

(1) Reasons for consideration: The circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, such as the age, gender, occupation, network S and Plaintiff E, F, G's family relationship, the circumstances and results of the instant accident, and the degree of the network S's liability.

(2) The determined amount.

Network S: 30,000,000

Plaintiff E: 14,000,000 won

Plaintiff F: 8,000,000 won

Plaintiff G: 8,000,000 won

(5) Inheritance relations

Plaintiff E: 43,512,479 won [the deceased’s property damage 71,529,119 won + the deceased’s consolation money 30,000,000 won] X3/7];

Plaintiff F and G: each 29,008,319 won = (31,529,119 won + (30,000,000 won) X2/7 of the deceased’s above data)

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsured Facts, empirical rules, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 12, purport of the whole pleadings

(6) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant H is obligated to pay the Plaintiff E a total sum of KRW 57,512,479 in inheritance amounting to KRW 43,512,479 in inheritance + KRW 14,000 in consolation money + KRW 14,000,000 in inheritance amounting to KRW 37,008,319 in total amount of damages for each of the Plaintiff F and G (i.e., KRW 29,008,319 in inheritance + KRW 8,000 in inheritance + KRW 8,000 in inheritance amount) and to pay damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 20% in accordance with the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 14, 2011 to May 10, 2012, which is the date of delivery of a copy of complaint of this case, as sought by the above Plaintiffs.

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

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea is responsible for supervising that asbestos which is a harmful substance should not be treated in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the former Labor Standards Act and the former Pollution Prevention Act, and in inevitable cases, monitoring and supervising that asbestos is not exposed to an asbestos disease, and neglecting to take measures to prevent pollution against Defendant H’s asbestos plants despite the legal obligation to take measures to prevent the pollution. In particular, in the United States of America in 1973, a judgment ordering an asbestos manufacturer to compensate for damage was rendered and the risk of asbestos is widely known and the Defendant Republic of Korea has failed to take any measures to prevent the risk of asbestos from being exposed to or known of the risk of asbestos. Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea is liable for compensation for damage suffered by the Deceased and the Plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

B. Determination

However, even if there is an abstract duty to protect the people from harmful substances to the defendant Republic of Korea, the above laws and regulations 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 see that the State has a specific duty to supervise the defendant's Republic of Korea not to handle asbestos or to take measures to prevent contamination against asbestos directly from occurring from the above laws and regulations. The fact that the defendant Republic of Korea has been carrying out specific regulatory measures for asbestos since the 1990s is as seen above. Such regulatory measures are established based on the research on harmful substances, technical level, economic feasibility, and social awareness development, which reflects the situation of the times, and this is a matter of the legislator's decision. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs' assertion by the plaintiffs alone did not take measures against the risk of asbestos and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant Republic of Korea suffered damage directly due to the defendant's act, and there is no other evidence to recognize tort liability against the defendant Republic of Korea.

4. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against defendant I

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant I knew the fact that the production of blue asbestos was prohibited by the announcement of the Japanese government, and that the occurrence of a fatal asbestos disease may occur when asbestos was exposed to the rock material. Defendant I, with knowledge that there was a fatal asbestos disease in the Republic of Korea, jointly established a P Co., Ltd. on June 2, 1971 with Defendant H for the purpose of manufacturing the lux asbestos product and produced lux asbestos manufacturing equipment in the instant plant, thereby having employees, such as Defendant H et al., caused asbestos disease. Accordingly, Defendant I is liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the said tort liability.

B. Determination

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that asbestos was prohibited from being produced in Japan or Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that asbestos was exposed to explosible substances in Japan. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, it is recognized as follows: ① No. 1995 in Japan was prohibited from producing asbestos in 195; ② The Japanese government enacted the former Rules on the Prevention of Asbestos Disasters (hereinafter referred to as the “former Rules”) in 1971 to regulate the production of asbestos to a certain level below the level of 7 years before and after 1971; ③ The Japanese government did not recognize that there was no possibility that asbestos was produced in the process of producing asbestos to a certain degree than 9 years before and after the enactment of the former Rules on 1971; ③ The Japanese government did not recognize that there was no possibility that asbestos was produced in the process of producing asbestos to a certain degree before and after the enactment of the Rules on 1971.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant H are accepted within the scope of the above recognition with merit, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea and I are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Lee Young-American

Judges Kim Gin-han

(i)For the convenience of calculation, the date of occurrence of an accident shall be based on the date of commencement of treatment, and, where the date of commencement of treatment cannot be known, on the basis of the date of diagnosis by doctors.

2) Article 73 (Supervisory Measures) (4) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4220, Jan. 13, 1990) (amended by Act No. 4220, Jan. 13, 1990) provides that where construction, dormitories, other accessory construction equipment, raw materials, or materials of a business which employs workers go against the standards set for safety and health, the Ministry of Social Affairs shall order the employer to suspend or change the use

3) The Minister of Health and Welfare under Article 6 (Order of Improvement) of the former Pollution Control Act (amended by Act No. 3078, Dec. 31, 1977) may order the owner or manager of the facility concerned to improve or replace the emission facilities or pollutant emission preventive facilities (hereinafter referred to as “preventive facilities”) or to take other necessary measures, in a case where it is deemed that the level of emission of pollutants emitted from the emission facilities or the degree of noise vibration is not in compliance with the permissible emission standards as prescribed in Article 3.

Article 7 (Order, etc. for Relocation of Facilities) (1) The Minister of Health and Welfare, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor, the Busan Metropolitan City Mayor, or the Do governor may order the owner or manager of the facilities concerned to move the factory or the place of business when the factory or the place of business is unable to carry out the improvement order under the provisions of the preceding Article, or when it is deemed particularly necessary.

Article 8 (Suspension of Operation) (1) The Minister of Health and Welfare may order a person who violates the improvement order referred to in Article 6 to suspend the operation of the emission facilities in whole or in part. (2) When the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City or the Do governor deems it urgent in accordance with the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare to prevent danger and injury to the national health due to air pollution, water pollution, noise and vibration and damage to the living environment, he/she may immediately order the restriction or suspension