(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2014.10.17.선고 2012가합100370 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff B 15,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from February 13, 2012 to October 17, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Plaintiff A and C’s claims and the remainder of Plaintiff B are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff A, C and the defendant is borne by the above plaintiffs, and the 9/10 of the part arising between the plaintiff B and the defendant is borne by the plaintiff B and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay 50,00,000 won per annum to the plaintiff A and C with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, 5% per annum from February 13, 2012 to the day of delivery of the application for modification of the purport of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

The plaintiffs are residents of Busan, and the defendant is a company that operates a nuclear power plant (hereinafter collectively referred to as "electric power plant of this case") with six-term nuclear power plants (hereinafter referred to as "electric power plant of this case"), including the main equipment of 1, 2, 3 (Operation from July 29, 1983), 4 (Operation from September 1985), 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 (Operation from February 201 to December 201), 3, 3, 4, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3,

B. The plaintiff B's residence history

On February 25, 1990, Plaintiff B transferred the radiation emissions from the power plant of this case to Busan High-si (the Yangsan-gun, 1995 transferred to the Busan High-gun) and transferred it to Sungnam-si on October 16, 1993. However, on March 30, 1996, Plaintiff B had been living in the above area and its neighboring G and H areas until now. The radiation emissions from the power plant of this case refer to the restricted area of the power plant of this case (the area surrounding the radiation control area and conservation area, where the radiation exposure in the boundary of the area is likely to exceed the level determined by the Nuclear Commission. Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nuclear Safety Act). The annual radiation exposure dose in the boundary of the area is as follows:

Units: msv/year

A person shall be appointed.

D. Plaintiff B’s Athroid cancer diagnosis

(1) On February 14, 2012, Plaintiff B was diagnosed as A’s crypam cancer (marrology) by hospital around February 2, 2012 and hospitalized on February 2, 2012, and was discharged on February 3, 2012 from A’s crypump cleaning and central cryp cleaning.

(2) The Plaintiff B shall be treated as a radioactive isotope in the future, and must use the Ardmon system in life.

(e) Relevant medical knowledge and statistics;

(1) The most important risk factors of Gap upper cancer are exposure to radiation caused by therapeutic radiation exposure and environmental disasters, and the risk increase is known to increase in proportion to the exposed radiation dose. Even in the case of family symptoms, the probability of the occurrence of Gap upper cancer is high. According to a variety of reports placed on the physical upper cancer accident, it was found that Gap upper cancer was found to have been significantly increased for women after the accident, and that the exposure to radiation and the upper cancer were in a capacity reaction relationship.

(2) According to the results of an epidemiological investigation conducted by the epidemian Institute of Medical Sciences and the epidemian Research Institute on Apr. 201, 201 and residents' epidemiological investigation conducted by the epidemian Institute of Education, Science and Technology, the distance from a nuclear power plant is far away, the occurrence rate of the Appamam was reduced, and the Apamamamam cancer development rate of female residents in the area adjacent to a nuclear power plant (within 5 meters from a nuclear power plant) was up to 2.5 times the long distance large area (area exceeding 30km from a nuclear power plant).

(3) As a result of the captain’s health examination, the hospital and the captain of Busan District jointly conducted a comprehensive health examination for 4,910 soldiers from July 2010 to December 2013, as part of the National Health Promotion Project for the captain of the Gun. Of the total 3,031 soldiers who had undergone cancer examination during the above period, the residents who had undergone cancer diagnosis were 41 persons. Meanwhile, the cancer diagnosis rate (including all kinds of cancer, such as the captain’s, waste cancer, and electric cancer cancer) of the Gangnam-gu Seoul District Hospital was 1.06% and the Samsung Seoul Hospital was 1.04%.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number if any) and Eul evidence No. 1, the result of the court's entrustment of the medical record review to the Occupational Environment Council of this Court, the result of each fact inquiry to the I Hospital of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff B's claim

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff B’s assertion

Plaintiff B resided in the vicinity of the instant power plant for not less than 20 years, and was exposed to radiation emitted from the instant power plant operated by the Defendant, and thereby was diagnosed as Apamam. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the Plaintiff B due to radiation exposure in the instant power plant, and sought payment of consolation money of KRW 200 million against the Defendant.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that there is no causation between radiation emitted from the power plant of this case and the occurrence of Plaintiff B’s upper cancer for the following reasons.

① The amount of radiation generated at the instant power plant is below the limit prescribed in the relevant statutes and public notice, and the Defendant did not discharge the radiation to the extent that the Defendant did not affect the health of residents in the neighboring areas of the instant power plant.

② The area where Plaintiff B resided (as about approximately 7.689 km in the instant power plant) does not correspond to the area (within 5 km in a nuclear power plant) where the correlation between the development rate of Appam cancer was shown in the epidemiological investigation conducted by residents in the surrounding area of the nuclear power plant and the development rate of Apamam is not affected by the instant power plant.

③ In the epidemiological investigation of residents in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant, the residence period and the rate of cancer generated by the women who suffered Apamam are not proportional to the residential period of the women who suffered Apamam and the same result did not appear in the case of men, and the tendency of increase in other cancer than Apam.

B. Determination

(1) Whether liability for damages was established

In general, the burden of proof of causation between the harmful act and the damage occurrence in the damage claim case due to the tort is borne by the victim who is the claimant. However, in a lawsuit claiming the damage compensation due to air pollution or water pollution, there are many cases where the cause substance discharged by an enterprise indirectly causes damage by using air or water as a medium, and the current scientific level cannot be clarified with respect to pollution issues, so it is extremely difficult or impossible to prove one story which constitutes the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage in nature. Therefore, it can be a result of the refusal of actual judicial relief due to high seas. On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the harmful substance discharged by an enterprise to the extent that it is not lawfully operated by the perpetrator, such as the degree that it is not possible for the victim to prove the existence of a factual causal relationship in the pollution lawsuit, and that the harmful substance is considerably more easily than that of the victim, and that the harmful substance is ordinarily operated by the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46284, Apr. 28, 20192).

In this case, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the above acknowledged facts, namely, ① exposure to radiation was known to the ray No. B as a critical factor in the occurrence of the ray No. 1; ② The Defendant operated a total of six nuclear power plants in the Busan Gun, and the Plaintiff B appears to have been living in approximately 10km or for about 10 meters in an area south of 10 meters, and there is no obvious material to deem that there were other causes than radiation released from the ray No. 2; ④ The annual radiation dose emitted from the ray No. 2000 to the 6th ray No. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Nuclear Safety Act (based on the boundary of the restricted area) and the annual radiation dose generated within the 5th ray No. 200 to the extent that there was no significant difference between the 0th ray No. 1 and the 10th m25th m2 of the 0th m20th m206th m2.

Therefore, the Defendant, who operates the instant power plant, is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff B due to radiation emission.

(2) Scope of liability for damages

In light of the general examples of Gap's upper cancer (a long-term survival even in cases where Gap's upper cancer spreads to another long-term), the content of future treatment, the defendant also has endeavored not to exceed the annual effective radiation dose prescribed by the relevant statutes, and the defendant has supported the comprehensive health examination of the residents of the plane captain-gun every year to minimize the violation of the health of the residents due to the power plant of this case, the plaintiff B is expected to claim consolation money in consideration of the treatment costs incurred by the plaintiff B, the costs of treatment incurred by the plaintiff B, the plaintiff B seems to claim consolation money, and other circumstances shown in the arguments, the consolation money for the plaintiff B shall be determined as KRW 1

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff B damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 13, 2012 to October 17, 2014, which is the date of the judgment that is appropriate to dispute as to whether the Defendant’s performance obligation exists and the scope thereof, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the plaintiff A and C's claims

A. The plaintiff A and C's assertion

The above plaintiffs received a ledger cancer diagnosis and the diagnosis of congenital malutism by plaintiffs C. This result is the result of long-term exposure to radiation emitted by the defendant in the course of operating the power plant of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the above plaintiffs are liable for all damages due to radiation exposure in the power plant of this case, and sought compensation for consolation money from the defendant.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, Plaintiff A and C have resided for a long time in the vicinity of the instant power plant, and Plaintiff C had a congenital malutism diagnosis. However, according to the result of this court's entrustment of medical examination and treatment to the Association of Vocational Environment, it is found that there was a large quantity of 50 years of age or older, red meat and processed meat products, drinking, family history, etc., and that there was no capacity-contest relationship between radiation exposure and workplace cancer in the existing research, and the cause of self-pulmonation increase. In light of the above facts and evidence submitted by the above Plaintiffs alone, there was no evidence to acknowledge causation between the above Plaintiffs' diagnosis and the disease of this case.

Therefore, the above plaintiffs' claims for damages are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff B's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff B and the claims of the plaintiff A and C are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.