원자력 발전소 주변 주민 암 발생 관련 소송 ― 역학적 인과관계와 법적 인과관계의 이해를 중심으로 ―

In the 2000s, environmental ligations, in which epidemiological causality is a major issue, are continuously increasing. Nevertheless, plaintiffs’ claims are rarely accepted by the courts and the liability of the perpetrators are too often overlooked. In this paper, we examine the ongoing issues related to lawsuits filed by local residents near the nuclear power plant for compensatory damages. (Busan District Court East Branch Court, 2014. 10. 17. 2012 Gahap 100370, Busan High Court 2019. 8. 14. 2014 Na 53844). The purpose of this study is to critically analyze the legal significance of epidemiological causality, the burden of proving causality in environmental litigations, and the criticism of the distinction between specific and nonspecific diseases. Finally, we identify the fundamental causes of the disapproval of epidemiological causality and provide alternatives and implications for solving these problems. The purpose of this study is to deal with the issue of the case, especially the criticism of the distinction between specific and nonspecific diseases, the legal significance of epidemiological causality, and the burden of proof of causality in environmental litigations. Finally, the fundamental causes of the disapproval of epidemiological causality are identified, and alternatives and implications for solving these problems are introduced and described. We present the following opinions through this study. First, it is invalid to distinguish between specific and nonspecific diseases. Second, the logic of recognizing the legal causality from the epidemiological causality is too strict, and the attitude that the existing decisions(including the given dicision) have taken in the environmental litigation where the epidemiological causality is a main issue is not consistent with the legal principle of alleviating the burden of proof in the overall environmental litigation like the neo-probablity theory. Third, if the attitude of the existing decisions that does not accept the epidemiological association is maintained, it is very difficult for the plaintiff, the victim in the environmental lawsuit, to be able to win the case. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt prospectively a flexible interpretation theory in proving the legal causality from the epidemiological causality by accepting and combining the natural scientific research results on the epidemiological association. Applying new legal principles on epidemiological causality in environmental damages cases where epidemiological causality is a issue will broaden the way for victims of environmental damages to be compensated appropriately.