「석면피해구제법」의 현황과 앞으로의 법적 과제

This article analyzes the legislative background, main contents, and implementation status of the Asbestos Damage Relief Act, which first introduced an administrative relief system for environmental damages. This paper also examines the problems and limitations under the current law and suggests some legislative solutions to solve these problems and address these limitations and considers some factors that must be taken into account in the stages of introducing or improving an administrative relief system in a field such as this. As a result of these analyses, the Asbestos Damage Relief Act has been implemented relatively stably and well, and its performance can be evaluated as successful. However, there are still some legal challenges surrounding (i) the criteria of recognition as an asbestos victim, (ii) the scope and amount of administrative relief, (iii) cost-sharing between the state and local governments, and (iv) the application of a specially allotted charge rate. Continuous efforts are needed to solve these problems. Some important reasons that led to the introduction of the Asbestos Damage Relief Act and its quick implementation are as follows: many victims complained of asbestos damages, it was difficult to remedy damage only using existing systems, it was predicted that asbestos damages would continue to occur due to the long incubation period of asbestos diseases, and a long-term and continuous damage relief system was required due to difficulties in identifying the causation of asbestos damages. Some important reasons that the act pass relatively easily are: the number of diseases caused by asbestos exposure was limited, there were not substantial difficulties in preparing requirements or criteria for the institutional recognition of the causal relationship between each disease and asbestos exposure and calculating the cost of treatment or medical care for each characteristic asbestos disease; and companies evaluated as bearing potential liability for asbestos diseases relatively willingly agreed to share the cost of relief because the seriousness of asbestos damage was widely recognized socially. However, if the scope of the diseases subject to administrative relief or the scope of pollutants or environmental hazardous factors that may potentially cause the disease is comprehensive, there will be inevitably many difficulties in establishing requirements or criteria for recognizing the causal relationship or determining the type or amount of relief benefits. Moreover, if the act is institutionalized under uncertain or abstract settings, there will be considerable difficulties in its operation. An administrative relief system under the Act on Liability and Relief for Environmental Pollution Damage is a representative example. If a new type of environmental damage whose cause is unknown occurs in the future, it will be necessary to consider fully and carefully the characteristics or patterns of diseases or damages subject to the administrative relief, reflecting on the reasons why the Asbestos Damage Relief Act has been enacted and implemented successfully before hasty institutionalization of an act.