토양오염으로 인한 민사상 손해배상책임의 청구원인에 관한 고찰

When contaminated land is transacted, civil liability issues arise, such as who should bear remediation costs and compensate for soil contamination damages. The Civil Act addresses liabilities in cases of sales through the seller's liability for defects (Article 580), contractual non-performance liability (Article 390), and tort liability for damages (Article 750). Additionally, specific environmental laws regulate these matters: The Framework Act on Environmental Policy assigns liability for damages to polluters (Article 44, Paragraph 1), the Soil Environment Conservation Act establishes liability for damages to a person responsible for the soil contamination (Article 10-3, Paragraph 1), and the Act on Liability for Environmental Damage and Relief mandates liability for business operators who install or operate facilities (Article 6, Paragraph 1). Therefore, the grounds of civil liability claims related to soil contamination damages are quite diverse. It is worthwhile to compare and analyze these various grounds of civil liability claims for soil contamination damages and examine the differences among them. Considerations include which ground of claim is most advantageous for the claimant in terms of burden of proof, scope of damages, and period for filing claims. Conversely, it is also important to consider whether courts should decide based on concurrence of claims or legal competition among the various grounds of action. Ultimately, these diverse grounds of liability claims for damages are generally similar regarding the scope of compensation. However, there are some differences concerning the intent or negligence of the defendant and the period for filing claims. Notably, if the conditions for liability under Article 6, Paragraph 1, of the Act on Liability for Environmental Damage and Relief can be met, it may be a particularly favorable ground of action for claimants. This law, as a special act, provides effective relief measures for victims of environmental pollution, addressing issues such as the burden of proof on victims and the compensation ability of business operators, which were problematic in traditional environmental pollution damage claims.