공해로 인한 손해배상소송에서의 인과관계에 대한 증명 부담 완화

A natural or legal person who claims compensation for damages(hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) must prove that it is significantly plausible that the damages were caused by the conduct of a natural or legal person(hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”). However, the Supreme court of Korea(hereinafter referred to as “the court”) has eased the burden of proof on causation in cases about damages caused by pollution(hereinafter referred to as “pollution cases”). According to Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is possible for judges to evaluate evidence on the basis of the ideology of social justice and equity. Therefore, such a tendency of the court on pollution cases can be justified bearing in mind the particular characteristics of pollution cases. However, easing the burden of proof on causation can be sustained only when it is necessary to do so for social justice and equity. The court has made a decision on causation through two steps of presumption and treated pollution cases regarding industrial sewage and non-specific diseases differently from pollution cases regarding seemingly unharmful materials and specific diseases. The court has eased the burden of proof on the mechanism of damage and whether the amount of released pollutants by the defendant is sufficient to activate the mechanism in pollution cases. However, the latter is hard to agree with. In my opinion, causation can be considered proven only when the fact that the defendant has released pollutants for a long time so that the pollutants have accumulated enough or when the fact that other harmful factors have attributed to the damages along with the defendant’s conduct is proven. In addition, causation regarding non-specific diseases should be proven by many consistent epidemiological correlations reflecting the difficulty of disproof. Recently, the Act on Liability for Environmental Damage and Relief Thereof and Special Act on Remedy for Damage Caused by Humidifier Disinfectants were enacted. Both Acts provide the grounds for the presumption of causation on pollution cases by law. However, the scopes of application for both Acts are limited. In this regard, the court’s stance on pollution cases does not lose its meaning, so the court should complement its logic as I mentioned above.