토양오염피해에 대한 손해배상청구의 법리

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

What is recently being highlighted as legal issue in both academic and executive circles is the problem of soil pollution. Soil pollution means losing function of soil’s original state as various substances that are harmful for soil become accumulated. The soil pollution damage through soil pollution can be classified as the damage of soil itself
and the secondary damage of life, physical body and property due to such damage. The claim for damages on such soil pollution damage can only be solved with the legal theory on the responsibility of compensation for damages according to the civil lawsuit.
In case soil pollution has occurred, first of all, the sufferer may claim compensation for damages due to the illegal activities in accordance with the Article 750 of the Civil Code. In other words, the sufferer may claim for damages on the occurred damage by proving the conditions of general illegal activities. But in order to claim compensation
for damages pursuant to the Article 750 of the Civil Code, the sufferer has to prove deliberation and negligence of assailant, illegality of harmful act or the causal relationship between harmful act and occurrence of damage. Accordingly, the sufferer claiming compensation for damages by proving all these things reveal limitations on the
protection of sufferer. Therefore, a special legal theory is being developed in proving deliberation and negligence of assailant or causal relationship in order to protect the sufferer in theories and legal precedents.
In case soil pollution damage has occurred, the provisions related to the liability of structure in the Article 758 of the Civil Code also can be the legal ground of claim for compensation of damages. That is because the liability of structure can be utilized as important liability basis as considerable portion of contaminants causing soil pollution
originates from structures such as corporate equipments. Even in our recent legal precedents, there is an example of acknowledging the compensation for damages liability on the soil pollution damage based on the liability of structure.
As the Framework Act on Environment Policy Article 44 provides the ‘strict liability of polluter’ on the environmental pollution, one would be able to claim compensation for damages based on the Framework Act on Environment Policy Article 44 in case the soil pollution damage has occurred. But there is controversy on the effect of the Framework
Act on Environment Policy Article 44 and one would not be able to claim compensation for damages if this provision is seen as a policy declaration oriented provision.
As the Soil Environment Conservation Act Article 10-3 Paragraph 1 provides that “When there has been a damage due to soil pollution, the applicable polluter must compensate the damages and purify the contaminated soil”, the strict liability and liability of purification are provided on the soil contamination damages. The strict liability provision of polluter in accordance with the Soil Environment Conservation Act Article 10-3 can become very useful means for the sufferer. In other words, it is because the sufferer from soil pollution is able to receive compensation of damage by proving only the causal relationship between the harmful act and the soil pollution damage.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박노일, "환경피해구제제도에 대한 법제적 검토" 국회사무처 법제실 2002

2 연화준, "환경침해에 대한 사법적 구제" 충북개발연구원 14 (14): 2003

3 전경운, "환경정책기본법 제31조에 의한 무과실책임의 문제점과 개정방향 - 환경정책기본법의 개정안 제44조와 관련하여-" 한국환경법학회 31 (31): 319-347, 2009

4 김홍균, "환경정책기본법 개정방향" 한국환경법학회 23 (23): 2001

5 환경부, "환경오염피해 구제에 관한 법률안 - 공청회 자료집"

6 구연창, "환경오염의 사법적 구제" 서울대학교 법학연구소 22 (22): 1981

7 안법영, "환경오염의 법적구제와 개선책" 한림과학원 1996

8 최상호, "환경오염에 대한 민사책임" 계명대학교 출판부 1999

9 권오승, "환경소송의 효용과 한계, In 민법학논총 제2권- 후암 곽윤직선생 고희기념" 박영사 1995

10 오석락, "환경소송의 제문제" 삼영사 1996

11 조은래, "환경소송에 있어서의 인과관계론에 대한 고찰, In 이종상 박사 화갑기념논문집" 문양사 1994

12 전경운, "환경사법론" 집문당 2009

13 이재협, "환경분쟁과 협상" 경희법학연구소 36 (36): 2001

14 구연창, "환경법론" 법문사 1993

15 이상규, "환경법론" 법문사 1998

16 김홍균, "환경법" 홍문사 2010

17 박균성, "환경법" 박영사 2010

18 환경부, "환경백서" 2010

19 박종원, "헌법불합치결정에 따른 토양정화책임조항 입법론" 비교법학연구소 10 : 105-159, 2013

20 안경희, "토지 소유자 상태책임의 헌법불합치 결정에 대한 민사법적 평가와 향후 전망" 비교법학연구소 10 : 23-57, 2013

21 조홍식, "토양환경침해에 관한 법적 책임" 한국환경법학회 20 : 1998

22 조은래, "토양환경의 보전과 책임" 한국토지법학회 28 (28): 209-234, 2012

23 한상운, "토양환경보전법상의 무과실책임의 원인자 조항에 대한 헌법불합치 결정과 향후 전망" 비교법학연구소 10 : 1-22, 2013

24 조은래, "토양오염의 피해에 대한 책임" 한국지하수토양환경학회 10 (10): 1-9, 2005

25 김현준, "토양오염으로 인한 정화책임과 손해배상책임 - 최근 판례를 중심으로 -" 한국토지법학회 28 (28): 173-207, 2012

26 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 2005

27 이은영, "채권각론" 박영사 1995

28 김상용, "채권각론" 화산미디어 2009

29 곽윤직, "채권각론" 박영사 2002

30 양창수, "자연력이 가공한 손해발생과 손해배상책임" 국가고시학회 1986

31 이시윤, "신민사소송법" 박영사 2009

32 송덕수, "신민법강의" 박영사 2013

33 김형석, "민사적 환경책임" 법학연구소 52 (52): 205-246, 2011

34 지원림, "민법강의 제11판" 홍문사 2013

35 강운산, "미국의 토양오염지역의 재개발 지원제도에 관한 연구" 39 (39): 2004

36 김홍균, "미국 종합환경대응책임법(CERCLA)상의 책임당사자와 토양환경보전법상의 오염원인자" 한국환경법학회 24 (24): 2009

37 권용우, "광해배상책임의 법리, In 손해배상법의 문제점" 박영사 1990

38 전경운, "광해로 인한 손해배상책임" 명지대학교 법학연구센터 (2) : 2002

39 구연창, "공해와 인과관계에 관한 판례의 동향, In 민사법과 환경법의 제문제 - 송헌 안이준 박사 화갑기념논문집" 박영사 1986

40 전경운, "環境侵害被害의 私法上 救濟法理" 한국환경법학회 25 (25): 14-390, 2003

41 김제완, "權利行使期間에 관한 爭點과 民法改正 方案 - 소멸시효 관련 논의에 부수하여 -" 한국민사법학회 50 : 35-121, 2010

42 김현준, "土壤淨化責任 ―토양환경보전법 제10조의3에 대한 비판적 검토―" 한국공법학회 34 (34): 187-211, 2005

43 Rolf Schmidt, "Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil Ⅱ" 2009

44 Klaus Vieweg, "Sachenrecht, 4. Aufl" 2010

45 Karl Larenz, "Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts Besonderer Teil, Bd. Ⅱ, 13. Aufl" 1994

46 Hein Kötz, "Deliktsrecht, 6. Aufl" 1993

47 Hans Brox, "Besonderes Schuldrecht, 34. Aufl" 2010

48 Volker Emmerich, "BGB-Schuldrecht Besonderer Teil, 11. Aufl" 2006