토양환경보전법상 정화책임의 민사법적...

토양환경보전법상 정화책임의 민사법적 검토1)

조 은 래*

.

.

.

.

Ⅰ. 서언

. 1982 1991 12

( ) 1), 19952), 1999

3), 2007 ( ) ,

2010 ) 4) .

* , 1) 1994 8 .

2. 14

. “” .

. 2) , , ,

. 3) (B)

. , 6 , . 4) 09 7 )

1.5 km ( 932 , 80% : 20%)

∣30∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

2 5 71

, 363 .5)

214

217 ,

750 760

. 10 3

.

.

.

10 3

,

.

.6)

.7)

.8)

,

, 2000 , 2011 .

5) 2 1983 .

4 6810 . 2 2000. ,

120 . , 2011.12.22. 6) , “ - 10 3 -”, ,

34 2 , , 2005, 193 ; , “”, , 9 1 , , 2009, 376-377

. 7) " "

( 2 ). 2 .

, , , .

8) ,

.

토양환경보전법상 정화책임의 민사법적 검토 _ 조 은 래　∣31∣

.

.

.

Ⅱ. 토양오염피해와 손해배상

1. 서설750

( )

.9) 10)

.11)

,

, 12) .13)

.

9) , “ ”, 52 1 , , 2011, 210.

10) , soil gas , , .

11) ,

. , 750

. .12) , “ ”, 14 , , 1992, 7-8 .13) ,

. .

.

∣32∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

. 14) .

,

.

,

,

,

.15)

,

,

.16)

,

.17)

44 18)

14) .

. .

15) 遠田尙彦, 環境法, 弘文堂, 1995, 30 . 16) 1973.10.10 73 1253 ; 1974.12.10 72 1774 ;

1984.6.12 81 558 ; 1991.7.23 89 1275 .17)

, 44 ( 31), 75 ( 91 ), 82 ( 80 ), 3, 5 ( 4 ) .

18) ( 31 ). , “ ( ) ”,

10 , , 2001, 81 . ,

. , , , 1995, 714 .

. , “”, , 47, 1996, 303 ;

, “ ”, 25 2 , , 2003, 384-385 .


10 3

,

.

2. 토양환경보전법상의 무과실책임

. ,

( 10 3 1 ).

44 ( )

,

( ),

,

.19)

.

(

) ,

( ) 20), , ,

. 21)

.22) ( 44

)

.

19) , “ 31 ”, 31 2 , , 2009, 326 ; , , , 2009, 198 .

20) 吉村良一, 不法行爲法, 有悲閣, 2010, 14-15 .21) , “ ”, ( ), 2002, 189-190 ; , “

”, , 13 , 2004, 293-295 .

22) , , 2011, 227 .

∣34∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

,

.23)

,

.

.

.24)

44

.25)

.

.26) , ,

.27) 10

3 , ,

750

.28) , ,

23) , , 2011, 228 . 24) , , 2009, 333 .25) 2001.2.9 99 55434 .26) CERCLA(Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act, Superfund ) 107 (a) (PRPs).

. 42 USC Sec. 9607, http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/42/9607. shtml. par. 1. , “ ,

, , , , ”, , 3 2 , , 2004. 12, 38 .

27) , “ ”, 25 1 , , 2003. 9, 38 .

28) .


44

.

29),

.

.

.30)

3. 연대책임10 3 2 “

1

.”

.

,

.

, , ,

.

,

29) , “ ”, , 20 , , 1998, 320 .

30) , , 2009, 376-377 . .

.

.

. .

∣36∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

.31)

,

.

,

.

.32)

.33)

34),

.35)

,

.36)

.

,

.37)

31) , “ ”, , 32 1 , , 2010, 133-134 .

32) , , , 2004, 427 ; , , , 1974, 148 ; , , 617 ; 2005.7.8. 2005 8125 ; 2002.5.24.

2002 14112 ; 1991.10.22. 90 20244 ; 1983.5.24. 83 208 .

33) , “ ”, (2011 21), , 2011, 17 .

. 34) 2009.12.24. 2009 12778 ; 2010.2.11 2009 20137 . 35) , “ ”, , 32 2 ,

, 2010, 167 ; 2008.12.18. 2007 3204 . 36) , , , 1997, 219 . 37)


. 38), ,

.39)

,

.

. 40),

.41) 2

. . , “

”, , 1999, 58.

38) DETR Circular 2/2000, Annex 3Chapter D( ) .

- -.

, , , . .

, ,

.

. , , 2004, 44-46 .

39) ,

. .

(United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp. 802(S. D. Ohio 1983).

24 (2).

40) , .41) , , 2004, 53 .

∣38∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

.42)

10 4

,

.

.

,

.

,

.

.

Ⅲ. 토양오염과 정화비용배상

1. 정화책임과 정화비용.

. 43)

.44)

.

.45)

42) , , 2004, 47-48 . 43) , “ - -”,

, 24 1 , , 2002, 3 .44)

( ) . , ,

. , , , 1999, 167 .

45) , “ ”, , 27 3 , , 2005, 136-137 .


.

.46)

.

10 4 .47)

, ,

( 10 4 ). ,

.48)

.

.

.49)

. ,

.

,

,

.

,

46) , (, ) . , , 2005, 193 .

47) “

”.

48) , “ : ”, , 110 , , 2009, 273 ; , , 2004, 36 .

49) , , 2010, 126-127 .

∣40∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

.50)

1004 ( ) .

.

( )

.

.51)

2003 1

.

.52)

.

( ).53)

( 7 ).

( 8 ).

50) , , “ ”, 2005, 137-138 .51) BGB, NJW 2005, 1366(=Urteil vom 4. 2. 2005 - V ZR 142/04(LG Aurich)). .

, “ ”, (2011 21 ), , 2011, 79-83

.52)

( 8 ) , .

, . 3 “ ”

(名古屋地法, 昭和61.9.29, 37 9 1173 ). ,

, , ( 4 , 7 )

. 大塚直, “ ”, , 301 , , 2010. 4, 220-222 .

53) 大塚直, , 2010. 216 .


.

.

,

.54)

2. 계약책임과 정화비용

.

.

.

,

.55)

.

, 580

.

,

.56)

.

(1)

.

54) 大塚直, , 2010, 221 .55) , , 2009, 368-369 .56) , , 2011, 88 .

∣42∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

.

.57)

,

.58)

.

.59)

.

,

.60)

.

,

.

57) 田中志律子, “土地汚染の民事法的救濟”, (2011 21), , 2011, 35 .

58) .

59) . ,

. “ ”

,

. , , (

) , . 松尾弘,

“土地取引における土壤汚染リスクの分配と民事解釋 -瑕疵擔保責任の再檢討を中心にして-”, 橫國第12卷 3号, 122 . .

60) 2007.10.25 2006 34379 .


.

61) .62)

.

, (

)

.63) .

,

,

( ,

) .

.64)

,

.

.65)

,

.

.66)

61) BGB NJW 2001, 64(=Urt.v. 20. 10. 2000-VZR 285/99(Dresden)). .62)

.63)

. , , 2011, 90 ; OLG München, NJW 1995, 2566 .

64) BGB NJW 1995, 1549(=Urteil vom 03-03-1995 - V ZR 43/94(Frankfurt a. M.)) .65) , , 2010, 138 .66) ,

, 6

∣44∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

,

.

(2)

.

,

.

.

,

, 580

. 67) .

2

,

.68)

,

( )

.

.69) ,

,

, . 東京地判 2011.1.20, 判例時報 2111 , 48 .

67) 2004.7.22. 2002 51586 .68) 2004.8.12 2004 2229 .69) 田中志律子, , 2011, 39-40 .


.

.

,

.70)

,

,

.71)

.

,

.

,

.72)

, .73)

3. 관련사례(한국철강 대 부영사건)2009 12 24 ( ) ( )

, ,

‘

’ ( )

.74)

70) 大塚直, “土壌汚染に関する不法行為及び汚染地の瑕疵について”, ジュリスト1407号, 有悲閣, 2010.9.15, 78

71) 田中志律子, , 2011, 41 .72) VG Freiburg, ZUR, 1998, 42.73) , “ ”, , 3 1 ,

, 2001, 280 .

∣46∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

.

2011 10 29 .

(1)

( ) , 2003. 3. 14.

621 245,730.7

2003. 3. 25. .

, 2006. 10.

,

. 2007. 9. 18.

( ) , 10 3 3 3

, ( 679,645 )

15 3 3 .

.

.

(2) 75)

( )76), ( ) ,

74) 2009.12.24. 2009 12778 .75) , , 2010, 119 ; , , 2010, 173

; 2009.12.24. 2009 12778 ; 2009.6.26. 2009829 ; 2008.12.18. 2007 3204 .

76) 2 3 ‘ ’

‘ ’ , 10 3 3 3 1

‘ ’ , . ( ) ( ) ,

, , , 2 3 ‘

’ 10 3 3 31 ‘ ’ . . 2009.12.24.

2009 12778 .


77), 78), 79)

.

, ,

,

, , , ,

77) , 10 2 1

, , ,

, , , ,

, , ,

. . 2008.12.18. 2007 3204 .78) .

, 2006 10 ,

, , , 9

, 10 3 1 , 2

, 2007 9 18 ( )15 3 3 . 2009.12.24.

2009 12778 .79) 6 ( ) 3

, , 25 ,

, . . , ( )

. 10 3 1 , 2, ( )

, ( )

, , ,

, , .

2008.12.18. 2007 3204 .

∣48∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

.80)

( )

,

2007 5 22 282

557 . ( ) "

70 ~80 , 2006

200 " ,

, ,

. ( ) "

,

" .

1 5 2011 1 '

,

, '

( ) . ( )

,

40 .

( ) 100

. 2011 10 1

( ) 100

10 28

29 .81)

(3)

( )

80) , , 2010, 175 .81) http://news.donga.com/3/all/20111031/41517130/1. 2011-10-31 .


.

( ) ,

.

,

.

,

. ( )

( )

.82)

. ( ) 6 3

.

, ( )

,

.

( ) ( )

.83)

( )

82) , , 2010, 127-128 .83) , , 2010, 139 .

∣50∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

.

100 ( ) ( )

.

Ⅳ. 결어 ,

.

.

.

.

10 3

( ),

, .

.

.

, ,

.

, .

,

.

.

.

.


,

,

. ( )

.

.

( )

,

.

( ) .

,

.

2012.4.27, 2012.5.16, 2012.5.22

∣52∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

〔참고문헌〕 , , , 2004. , , , 1974., , , 1999., , , 1997., , , 2009., , , 1995., “ - -”,

, 24 1 , , 2002.

, “ ”, (2011 21

), , 2011.

, “ - 10 3 -”,

, 34 2 , , 2005.

, “ ”, , 27 3 ,

, 2005.

, “ ”, 52 1 , , 2011.

, “ : ”, ,

110 , , 2009.

, “ ( ) ”, 10 , ,

2001.

, “ ”, , 32 2 ,

, 2010.

, “ , , , ,

, ”,

, 3 2 , , 2004.

, “ ”, ,

47, 1996.

, “ ”, ,

13 , 2004.

, “ ”, ( ), 2002.


, “ ”, 25 1 ,

, 2003.

, “ ”, 25 2 ,

, 2003.

, “ 31 ”,

31 2 , , 2009.

, “ ”,

, 1999.

, “ ”, , 20 , ,

1998.

, “ ”, (2011 21

), , 2011.

, “ ”,

, 9 1 , , 2009.

, “ ”, , 32 1 ,

, 2010.

, “ ”, , 3 1 ,

, 2001.

, “ ”, 14 , , 1992.

吉村良一, 不法行爲法, 有悲閣, 2010.遠田尙彦, 環境法, 弘文堂, 1995.大塚直, “ ”, , 30 1 ,

, 2010.

田中志律子, “土地汚染の民事法的救濟”, (2011 21), , 2011.

http://news.donga.com/3/all/20111031/41517130/1. 2011-10-31.

http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/42/9607. shtml. par. 1.

∣54∣　환경법과 정책 제8권(2012.5.31)

The study on the Purification Responsibility of Soil Environmental Protection Law in a Civil law Aspect

84)

Cho, Eun-Rae*

Soil pollution purification is a public responsibility in a Soil Environmental Protection Law. It's responsibility for a necessary cost for land purification in civil law. When they deal in a polluted soil, purchaser can make seller take contractual liability. The purchaser can ask to pay purification measure or disposal cost and damage of undertaking delay to the seller. The purchaser burdened purification responsibility can demand damages or unfair profits in return for purification cost. In the Article 10 Section 3 Soil Environmental Protection Law, liability without fault is regulated for injured party relief. However a specific Environment Liability Law should be enacted because there are a proof ease of cause-and-effect relationship, information claim, implementation security of compensation, etc.. We need the measures to resolve a joint liability distribution about purification responsibility. As the countermeasure for these, liability order among polluters and decision-making process should be reflected in policy.

The court has judged severely the responsibility of seller as polluter in the case of dealing in real estate recently. So if they can recognize socially the hazard of current pollutants on the land, the purchaser can claim the warranty liability to the seller even if he is not aware of contamination situation about the land. Also if the seller could perceive the risk of pollutants on the land and predict the concerns that the current pollutants had been contained from the background of land, the seller must explain this fact to the purchaser. Because this sounds in contract purpose and good faith principle. When the seller is negligent of this duty, he assumes the responsibility for default.

: , , , , ,

Key words: soil pollution, polluters, liability without fault, a joint liability, purification responsibility, warranty liability

* Assistant professor, Busan University of Foreign Studies

토양환경보전법상 정화책임의 민사법적...

Documents