해양유류오염배상법제 개선을 위한 국내기금제도의 도입에 관한 연구

한상운,황의관 한국공법학회 2011 공법연구 Vol.40 No.1

After the Hebei Spirit oil spill accident, we recognized that some problems in our guarantee regime on the compensation for oil pollution damage were significant. These problems were categorized into different two characteristics which were comprised of not to remedy properly for victims and to delay payment for compensation. These problems were due to the international framework for the oil pollution damage compensation system. Therefore, this article reviews the international regimes and point out the problems. In addition, present regimes on the compensation for oil pollution damage exclude environmental damage caused by oil spill accident from oil pollution damages. Thus this article analyses environmental damage caused by oil spill and performs comparative legal study on the inclusion of environmental damage as a oil pollution damage in EU, U.S.A., and EU member states. In this analysis and comparative legal research, we found that there were legislative tendency to include environmental damage into the oil pollution damages. In order to solve the above-mentioned problems and environmental damages caused by oil spill, we emphatically recommend that the introduction of national oil pollution fund is a only resonable solution. Because existing oil pollution compensation system is a fundamental cause, independent national oil pollution fund is suitable for a policy alternative. When the national oil pollution fund is introducing, the method of collecting fund revenue is composed of government contributions, oil levy to be paid oil industry, existing enforceable related levy. The national oil pollution fund that receives funds from establishing new oil levy is a reasonable policy for Polluter-Pays Principal. Futhermore, operation of the national oil pollution fund have to follow the rule of korean financial law. It is a resonable that to operate the national fund trusts assigns the new establishing fund authority. Like legislative tendency to include environmental damage caused by oil spill into oil pollution damage, the national oil pollution fund is required to compensation for environmental damage caused by oil spill. However, available environmental damages is restricted to the extent that comprise primary remediation cost and complementary remediation cost. Both interim losses and assessing cost exclude available environmental damage caused by oil spill. As early stage of the introduction of national oil pollution fund, broad inclusion of environmental damage caused by oil spill may be used to reason for opponent to national oil pollution fund. Reclaimant for environmental damages caused by oil spill against the national oil pollution fund is only trustee that is composed of state and local government. 2007. 12. 허베이 스피리트호 사고가 발생한 이후 유류오염손해배상법제에 관하여 많은 문제점이 제기되어 왔다. 특히나 손해배상의 인정범위와 배상의 신속성에 많은 비판이 집중되었다. 현행 유류오염배상법제에 대한 이런 문제제기에 따라 본 논문에서는 유류오염배상법제의 근간을 이루고 있는 국제유류오염배상체제를 살펴보고 동 체제가 가지는 문제점을 지적한다. 그리고 현행 유류오염배상법제에서 사실상 배상범위에 포함되지 않고 있는 유류오염에 따른 환경손해에 관하여 검토한다. 환경손해의 정의와 유류오염배상법제와 환경손해의 관계에 대한 각국의 입법상황을 분석하고 유류오염에 따른 환경손해를 배상의 대상으로 인정하려는 각국의 입법추세를 확인한다. 이러한 일련의 분석을 통하여 현행 유류오염배상법제 개선을 위해서는 국제기금과는 별개의 국내기금을 도입하는 것이 필요하다는 점을 강조한다. 그리고 유류오염배상법제의 개선방안으로서 도입이 필요한 국내기금제도에 관하여 보다 상세한 정책적 제안을 한다. 여기에는 기금의 설치 및 재원조성방안, 기금의 관리주체 및 운영방안, 기금의 권한 및 관련된 분쟁해결수단 등이 포함된다. 그리고 국내기금에서 유류오염에 따른 환경손해도 원칙적으로 배상의 대상으로 포함하고 그러한 경우 누가 환경손해배상청구권을 가져야 하는지에 대하여 현행 헌법과 법률에 따라 국가와 지방자치단체가 청구권자가 되어야 함을 설명한다. 이와 같이 본 논문은 현행 유류오염배상법제의 문제점을 분석하고 그에 대한 개선방안으로서 국내기금제도를 제안하며 구체적으로 국내기금의 운영방안에 관한 정책적 제언을 하려고 한다.

피해자 삶의 복원을 위한 환경오염피해의 사회모델 개발 : 오염공동체 사례를 중심으로

김도균,조공장,이재혁,진대용,서은주,김미숙,권오용 한국환경연구원 2020 기본연구보고서 Vol.2020 No.-

Ⅰ. Introduction ㅇ Contaminated communities are found throughout South Korea―in areas where environmentally hazardous facilities are located or environmental accidents had occurred. Although living in contaminated communities wreaks great havoc on the health of residents and their quality of life, the government and society have not given sufficient attention to these communities. ㅇ Thus, this study aims to build a theoretical and experiential foundation to formulate a policy for supporting the victims of contamination by analyzing various types of damages caused by pollution and the rehabilitation process that contaminated communities undergo. ㅇ The research objectives are as follows. - Develop “a model of society with environmental pollution damage” that can be used for analyzing various types of damage caused by environmental pollution as well as the rehabilitation process - Conduct a case study to confirm the usefulness of the developed model of society - Suggest the policy direction for rehabilitating the victims of contamination based on the study findings Ⅱ. Theory Review and Analysis for Developing the Model of Society with Environmental Pollution Damage ㅇ To develop a “the model of society with environmental pollution damage,” this study will utilize various previous studies from the fields of sociology and anthropology and statistical characteristics of contaminated communities in South Korea, along with theoretical studies on social impact assessment, social structure of damage, disaster resilience, and technical disaster. ㅇ The plan for utilizing the related theories and experiential studies is shown in the table below. Ⅲ. Model of Society with Environmental Pollution Damage(Plan) 1. Three paths to environmental pollution damage ㅇ To comprehensively understand the pollution damage resulting from an environmental pollution accident, it is imperative to check three pathways as follows. ㅇ Pollution damage from environmental pollution accidents primarily results from a compromised biophysical environment (pathway 1). Depending on the varied levels of resilience and vulnerability that the individuals or the community have, the pollution damage can manifest differently (pathway 2). In addition, the damage is affected by the countering process of the government organizations, the polluter business, and the civil society (pathway 3). 2. Variables of pollution damage assessment ㅇ The pollution damage assessment can be divided into four areas: economic, social, health, and life. ㅇ We suggested 15 variables: five in the economic area (production activity, changes in the way of earning a livelihood, income and expenditure, property rights, and changes in labor); seven in the social area (population, household, social relationship, leisure, culture, education, and housing); two in the health area (physical health and mental health); and one in the life area (damage to life). We suggested 28 items as sub-variables or assessment items. ㅇ Detailed assessment items can be altered, added, or selectively used based on the characteristics of the environmental accident and the local community. ㅇ The research method for assessment can be actively utilized by adopting the method that can convey the standpoint of the victims. 3. Variables of the rehabilitation process ㅇ After each environmental pollution accident, a certain form of rehabilitation process follows, which involves various stakeholders. The actors that become involved in the rehabilitation process can be divided into the central government, the business enterprise, and the civil society. ㅇ The main actors in the category of the government (the central and the regional government) include the council and court; the main actors of the civil society include the residents as victims, NGOs, the press (coverage), experts in the field, and volunteers. As environmental pollution originates from the business activities in the industrial capitalist society, business enterprises are also main actors. ㅇ Depending on whether the interaction between these actors is cooperative, the rehabilitation can progress rapidly, or the pollution damage can be prolonged. Ⅳ. Application of the Model: Case Study on the Iksan Jangjeom Village ㅇ We applied the developed “model of society with environmental pollution damage” to the Iksan Jangjeom village case. ㅇ Jangjeom is a small agricultural village located in the city of Iksan in Jeollabukdo province. The villagers had experienced extreme damage pertaining to life and health due to environmental pollution from a fertilizer factory (Geumgang Nongsan) located in the vicinity of the village. 1. Various types of damage from environmental pollution □ Experience of environmental pollution ㅇ The residents complained about the severity of smoke, foul odor, and wastewater they experienced in daily lives using their senses, including visual and olfactory senses. ㅇ The residents appeared to have experienced the olfactory discomfort the most as they frequently complained about the discomfort related to smell as follows: “smoke that makes eyes burn,” “pungent odor that pricks the nose,” and “smell resembling that of rotting animal carcass.” □ Area of life and health ㅇ The deadliest damage that the residents of the Jangjeom Village suffered has been that to their life and health, which manifested as cancer. Death and worsening health conditions associated with cancer can be seen as “the most severe damage that is irreversible.” ㅇ The number of people who suffered damages to life and health due to cancer as of July 5, 2018, is 26―15 people died from cancer, and 11 people were patients. ㅇ The Ministry of Environment identified tobacco leaf as the carcinogen that caused cancers. It had been used illegally in the process of manufacturing process of organic fertilizer. □ Economic area ㅇ During the operation of the factory, there was direct and indirect damage to agriculture, the main livelihood of the villagers. This appears to have exerted a negative impact on the production and sales of agricultural products. □ Social area ㅇ Noticeable social changes since the factory began to operate include “a decrease in daily interactions” with neighbors and family members. There were conflicts between villagers, but they did not escalate to the point of a strong enmity. ㅇ In the process of taking collective countermeasures to solve the problem of environmental pollution, a collaborative social relationship was also observed. 2. Responses of stakeholders ㅇ In the process of identifying the cause of cancers and the process of rehabilitation, various actors were involved―the residents as victims, the government, the business enterprise, regional NGOs, experts, and the press. They dealt with the problem of the Jangjeom Village through conflicts and collaboration. ㅇ The key role was played by the governance that consists of various stakeholders such as the regional government, regional NGOs and experts, and the residents as victims. The governance contributed positively to solving the problem by particularly providing the victimized residents with scientific knowledge and information and socio-political resources which the victimized residents have difficulty in mobilizing. ㅇ Regional NGOs and experts that participate in the governance play a decisive role in the process of verifying the epidemiological connection between the pollutant and cancer. Currently, they play the role of moderators between residents as well as between the government and the residents. Ⅴ. Conclusion ㅇ Some political implications can be suggested as follows. - First, it is necessary to build collaborative governance. The governance, which is meant to rehabilitate the victims of contamination, needs to take a clear stance as the social mediation system and adopt a victim-centered perspective rather than the perspective of mechanical neutrality. - Second, it is necessary to strengthen the public forum on pollution damage. It is essential to integrate the governance and the public forum on pollution damage (regional) by utilizing various methodologies that are deliberate and democratic (joint fact-checking surveys, scenario workshops, public opinion surveys, etc.). - Third, it is necessary to improve the laws related to providing damage relief to victims of environmental pollution. It is also essential to increase the facilities that require a mandatory environmental liability insurance to expand the scope of damage relief. ㅇ The significance of this study and the future research avenues are as follows. - This study is significant from academic and political perspectives as it developed a model of society with environmental pollution damage with a focus on the victims of environmental pollution by conducting qualitative and quantitative analysis on pre-existing theories and precedent studies. - The model of society in this study still needs to be tested and improved further through application to various environmental pollution cases domestically and internationally. In particular, it is necessary to conduct a follow-up study to examine whether the model can be applied to cases involving a large corporation or a large contaminated community and whether it can be utilized internationally in Asia where rapid industrialization is underway similar to South Korea.

순수환경손해에 대한 구제방법으로서 원상회복

장재옥,변용완 전북대학교 부설법학연구소 2019 법학연구 Vol.61 No.-

The destruction and damage of the natural environment, the so-called damage to the pure environment (the damage to the eco-environment, the damage to the natural environment itself) are difficult to evaluate or judge the damages by monetary value. In particular, as long as pure environmental damages do not meet the requirements for compensation for deceitful personality, such civil environmental liability is not included in the concept of damages and is preventive based on a ban on the environment. It would be impossible to seek remedy or to compensate by including the costs associated with preventive measures in the calculation of damages. It is pointed out that there is a limit to treating damages as civil liability in the realm of public goods unless purely environmental damages are engaged with the individual interests of the victim. To solve this problem, many countries legislate the concept of pure environmental damage through special laws. Regarding responsibilities, once environmental damage occurs, it is difficult to recover, and as a way of recovering damages, the legislation of the restoration of the original rather than the financial compensation is specifically enacted. In the 2004 European Directive, the concept of civil responsibility plays an important role such as distinction of fault liability and no-fault liability, causality, etc. The EU Directive introduced the concept of damage to the environment itself, and it was found that it provided a limited but detailed remedy provision and compensation methods for natural damage caused by environmental pollution. Germany accepted the EU directive in 2007. Also, the US enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Resoponse Compensation and Liability Act, which provides liability for damages such as injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources. In this situation, for Korea to also effectively remedy the liability for damages to environmental pollution and promptly relieve victims from environmental pollution, on December 31, 2014, Environmental Pollution Damage Liability and Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Environmental Pollution Relief Act') was enacted and is effective from January 1, 2016. However, the Act does not include damages to the natural environment in the category of environmental pollution, and the extent of liability for damages varies depending on whether the damage is included. Therefore, it should be determined through in-depth discussion. "Environmental damage" is interpreted to mean the same as "environmental damage" under Article 3 No. 5 of the Basic Act on Environmental Policy. Environmental Pollution Relief Act needs to be defined more clearly in that it is the law that generates the actual rights and obligations of liability. Also, it is difficult to identify the extent of liability for damages or restoration of damages to the natural environment. Therefore, the scope and criteria of the "responsibility for restoring a damaged natural environment" need to be clearly defined, such as delegating or enumerating examples. Furthermore, if the restoration of the natural environment means returning to the state before the accident occurred, as a prerequisite, the qualitative level of the environment of the region before the accident should be determined to decide the extent of the responsibility for restoration by the relevant company in case of an accident. 환경손해는 환경침해를 통해서 발생한 손해 일반(광의의 환경 손해)과 환경에 대한 침해로부터 환경 자체에 생긴 손해(협의의 환경 손해)라는 두 가지 유형으로 나눌 수 있다. 전자에 포함되는 손해 중 환경침해로 인하여 특정한 사람의 생명 · 신체 · 재산 등에 대해서 생긴 손해는 민사책임법상 고전적인 보호법익의 침해에 대한 손해이다. ‘생태손해’, ‘자연 자체에 대한 손해’와 같은 순수한 환경손해는 후자의 경우에 해당한다. 전통적인 책임법은 특정의 법적 주체에 귀속하는 이익의 보호를 목적으로 생성된 것이어서 특정의 법적 주체에 이익이 귀속하지 아니하는 환경자체에 대한 구제를 포섭하지 못하는 문제가 있다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위하여, 외국은 특별법을 통해 환경손해의 개념 범위를 확장하여, 순수환경손해의 개념을 포섭하는 법률을 제정하였다. 책임과 관련하여서도, 환경훼손이 일단 발생하면 회복이 어려운 경우가 많은 바, 이에 대한 손해의 회복방법으로 금전배상이 아닌 원상회복을 원칙으로 하고, 그 내용을 구체적으로 규정하고 있다. 또한, 천문학적으로 발생할 수 있는 복구비용의 부담 문제를 해결하기 위하여 보험 또는 기금의 형태를 운용할 수 있는 체계를 마련하고 있다. 2004년 유럽연합 환경책임지침은 환경자체에 대한 손해의 개념을 도입하고, 제한적이지만, 환경오염으로 발생한 자연자체 피해에 대한 배상 규정 및 배상 방법을 상세하게 규정하였다. 독일도 2007년 EU 지침을 수용하여 국내법을 운용하고 있다. 그리고 미국은 일찍이 「종합환경대응책임법」을 제정하여, 자연자원의 피해, 파괴 또는 손실(injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources)이라는 손해가 발생한 경우 배상책임을 규정하고 있고, 복구비용의 부담이 천문학적인 숫자가 될 수 있기 때문에 자연환경훼손에 대한 복구비용에 제한을 하거나 보험 내지 기금을 활용하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서, 2016년 우리나라는 환경오염피해에 대한 손해배상책임을 실효적으로 구제하고, 환경오염피해로부터 신속하고 공정하게 피해자를 구제하기 위하여「환경오염피해 배상책임 및 구제에 관한 법률」을 제정하여 시행하고 있지만, 순수한 환경손해를 환경오염피해 내지 손해의 범주에 포함시키고 있지 않고 있다. 유럽, 독일, 미국에서의 환경오염피해 범주의 확대와 원상회복의 구체적인 방법과 비용 등의 내용은 우리나라의 환경오염피해 배상제도의 개선에 새로운 시각을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

환경오염피해의 구제에서 민사책임법과 보험의 상호관계 및 그 시사점

윤효영 한국경영법률학회 2016 經營法律 Vol.26 No.2

Recently modern civil liability law on environmental damage has been characterized by the changes introducing the new liability rules modifying traditional legal rules and compulsory insurance. These changes came on stage early in 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), and have been introduced in a number of domestic liability law system on environmental pollution damage. Even some differences in specified aspects, domestic environmental liability statues are mostly common in that they have been designed to protect victims of environmental damage through stipulating strict liability, reversed burden of proof or the assumption for causal relationship, and financial limits on liability. In addition to them, compulsory insurance requirement which mandates potential responsible parties to purchase an environmental liability insurance policy has become an essential constituent of these environmental liability statues. The Korean Act on the Compensation and Remedy for Environmental Pollution Damage 2014 also has introduced the above common elements. During an evolving framework for a legal regime on environmental liability, the new liability rules for the interests of victims and the concept of insurability for the interests of insurers have been developed, affecting each other. It is important to harmonize these conflict of interests in order to enforce the environmental liability law successfully. Therefore this paper firstly aims to examine the interrelationship between the main principles of environmental liability and insurability of environmental pollution risk. And then based on the implications from the inquiries, try to propose some legislative and institutional recommendations for achieving effective remedy for environmental pollution damage. 환경오염 피해의 구제를 목적으로 민사책임법의 분야에서는 전통적 법원칙을 수정한 책임 원칙과 강제보험을 도입하는 변화가 전개되었다. 이러한 변화는 해사책임 분야에서는 1969년 유류오염피해 배상책임에 관한 국제협약(CLC)의 제정으로 일찍부터 등장하였고, 이후 각국의 환경오염피해 배상 관련 책임법제로 확대되었다. 구체적 내용에는 차이가 있으나, 이들 법제들은 모두 책임당사자의 무과실책임과 연대책임, 인과관계의 입증책임 전환 내지 추정, 그리고 배상책임의 이행을 확보하기 위한 보험가입의무를 규정함으로써 피해자 보호에 주력하는 한편, 책임당사자의 책임과 보험가입 금액을 일정한 한도로 제한한다. 2014년 제정된 우리 ‘환경오염피해 배상책임 및 구제에 관한 법률’ 역시 이러한 공통 요소를 포함하고 있다. 환경책임법제의 발전 과정에서 환경오염 피해자의 이익을 위하여 도입된 수정된 책임 원칙들과 가해자 및 그의 책임보험자의 이익을 위한 부보가능성이라는 개념은 서로 영향을 미치면서 발전해 왔으며, 이들 사이의 균형을 찾으려는 노력이 환경책임법제의 성공적인 운영을 위하여 중요하다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 전제하에 환경책임법제의 공통 요소인 책임의 원칙과 부보가능성의 상호관계를 살펴보고, 이를 기초로 환경피해의 배상과 예방이라는 목적을 효과적으로 달성하기 위한 입법적 그리고 제도적 측면에서의 시사점을 모색하였다.

환경오염피해에 대한 원인자의 무과실책임 - 대법원 2017. 2. 15. 선고 2015다23321 판결 -

전경운 법조협회 2018 法曹 Vol.67 No.2

대상판결은 구환경정책기본법 제31조 제1항의 사업자의 무과실책임을 원인자의 무과실책임으로 개정(2011. 7. 21. 법률 제10893호로 전부개정, 2012. 7. 22. 시행)하여, 모든 환경오염피해에 대해서 원인자의 무과실책임을 규정한 환경정책기본법 제44조 제1항의 구체적 효력을 명시적으로 인정하고 있다. 그러므로 환경정책기본법 제44조 제1항에 의한 원인자의 무과실책임의 의미와 입법상의 문제점 및 그 구체적 효력의 인정유무 등에 대한 그간의 논의현황 등에 대해서 검토하고, 과연 구체적 효력을 인정하는 것이 타당한 것인가에 대해서 살펴보았다. 환경정책기본법 제44조 제1항에 의하면, 환경오염피해에 대하여 사업자의 무과실책임이 아니라, 모든 환경오염 내지 환경훼손피해에 대해서 원인자의 무과실책임이 인정된다. 이러한 규정은 환경오염 또는 환경훼손으로 인한 피해자보호에 대단히 충실한 입법이라고 할 수도 있다. 하지만 ⅰ) 모든 피해에 대해서 원인자의 무과실책임을 인정하여 그 적용범위가 너무나 광범위한 점, ⅱ) 국민의 일상생활로 인한 환경오염피해에 대해서는 과실책임의 원칙이 유지되어야 한다는 점, ⅲ) 특수한 환경오염에 대하여 특별법에 의하여 무과실책임을 인정하는 다수의 특별법의 의미를 퇴색시키고 심지어 무용지물로 만들 수 있다는 법체계적 관점, ⅳ) 원인자의 무과실책임의 문제점을 극복하기 위하여 환경오염피해구제법이 제정되었다는 점 등을 생각해 볼 때, 그 구체적 효력을 인정하는 것은 문제가 있다고 할 것이다. 책임주체가 비교적 한정적이었던 구환경정책기본법 제31조의 사업자의 무과실책임규정에 대해서도 환경정책기본법의 입법취지나 규정 등의 내용, 특히 일반조항적 구성요건으로 인한 광범위한 무과실책임의 인정 등의 이유로, 구체적 효력을 인정하기는 어렵고 환경정책의 지표를 제시하는 정책선언적 규정으로 보아야 한다는 입장이 있었다. 그런데 원인자의 무과실책임을 인정하고 있는 환경정책기본법 제44조 제1항은 위에서 지적한 여러가지 문제가 있으므로 구체적 효력을 인정할 것이 아니라 정책선언적 규정으로 보아야 하지 않을까 한다. 물론 이러한 논란을 분명히 해결하기 위해서는, 환경정책기본법 제44조에 대한 입법적 조치가 필요하다고 할 것이다. The Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1 recognizes the strict liability of the polluter for all environmental pollution damages. In this Supreme Court ruling, however, explicitly recognizes the specific force of Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1. Therefore, this study examines the meaning of strict liability of polluter pursuant to the Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1, its legislative problems, recognition of its specific force, and other relevant discussions, and it also examines whether it is feasible to recognize such specific force. According to the Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1, it recognizes not the strict liability of the operators for environmental pollution, but recognizes the strict liability of polluters for all environmental pollution or environmental damages. Such regulations can be viewed as laws extremely faithful to victim protection caused by environmental pollution or environmental damages. However, i) it recognizes the strict liability of polluters for all environmental pollution damage, thus having an excessively broad scope of application, ii) that the Principle of fault liability should be maintained for environmental pollution caused by daily life of the people, iii) legal perspective that can erode the meaning of numerous special laws that recognize strict liability and even make them useless by a special law on specific environmental pollution, and iv) that the Act on Remedy for Environmental Pollution Damage was enacted to overcome the problems of strict liability of the polluter. When considering the above, it is necessary to reconsider recognizing specific force. Moreover, it is necessary to legislate the Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 in order to clearly resolve such disputes.

환경오염피해구제법상 환경책임보험의 제도적 개선방안 검토

지광운 한국사법학회 2024 비교사법 Vol.31 No.3

In 2012, the Gumi hydrofluoric acid gas explosion was a well-known environmental pollution disaster, and in 2014, the Environmental Pollution Damage Compensation Act was enacted to provide prompt compensation for property and bodily injury to third parties caused by environmental pollution. The Act stipulates facilities that are obligated to obtain environmental liability insurance and requires them to prepare for the risk of accidents that may occur as a result of their operations. In accordance with the legislative purpose of the Environmental Pollution Damage Compensation Act, environmental liability insurance, a compulsory insurance policy introduced as a financial means for prompt recovery of bodily and property damages of third parties caused by environmental pollution, has been improved through various system improvements. Since the introduction of environmental liability insurance, various improvements have been made to the system, from the methods of selecting environmental liability insurance providers to the scope of coverage. Although environmental liability insurance in Korea differs from other countries, it has been steadily improving through the improvement of the insurance provider selection method and the expansion of some insurance scopes, and efforts are being made to improve environmental liability insurance by expanding the scope of coverage through various policy reviews. Therefore, it is necessary to not only look at environmental liability insurance critically, but also to recognize its features and make necessary improvements so that it can be transformed into an insurance that can provide prompt recovery of victims and protection of workplaces. This study aims to propose a system improvement plan for environmental liability insurance under the Environmental Pollution Damage Compensation Act in terms of coverage, terms and conditions, and assessment of damages. Therefore, a comparative legal review of the coverage of the EU's environmental liability insurance system, which can provide implications for the improvement of the Korean environmental liability insurance system, was analyzed. Through this analysis, it is necessary to continue to discuss whether there is a need to enhance the compensation limit and expand the scope of coverage by taking into account foreign legislation in relation to the current form of environmental liability insurance operations and the scope of coverage. As a result of this review, it suggested a system improvement plan after reviewing each issue regarding laws, terms and conditions, damage prevention costs, and damage assessment.

토양오염피해에 대한 손해배상청구 - 「환경정책기본법」과 「토양환경보전법」을 중심으로 -

이지원 중앙법학회 2017 中央法學 Vol.19 No.4

What is recently being highlighted as legal issue in both academic and executive circles is the problem of soil pollution. Soil pollution means losing function of soil’s original state as various substances that are harmful for soil become accumulated. The soil pollution damage through soil pollution can be classified as the damage of soil itself and the secondary damage of life, physical body and property due to such damage. The claim for damages on such soil pollution damage can only be solved with the legal theory on the responsibility of compensation for damages according to the civil lawsuit. In case soil pollution has occurred, first of all, the sufferer may claim compensation for damages due to the illegal activities in accordance with the Article 750 of the Civil Code. In other words, the sufferer may claim for damages on the occurred damage by proving the conditions of general illegal activities. But in order to claim compensation for damages pursuant to the Article 750 of the Civil Code, the sufferer has to prove deliberation and negligence of assailant, illegality of harmful act or the causal relationship between harmful act and occurrence of damage. Accordingly, the sufferer claiming compensation for damages by proving all these things reveal limitations on the protection of sufferer. Therefore, a special legal theory is being developed in proving deliberation and negligence of assailant or causal relationship in order to protect the sufferer in theories and legal precedents. Even in our recent legal precedents, there is an example of acknowledging the compensation for damages liability on the soil pollution damage based on the liability of structure. As the Framework Act on Environment Policy Article 44 provides the ‘strict liability of polluter’ on the environmental pollution, one would be able to claim compensation for damages based on the Framework Act on Environment Policy Article 44 in case the soil pollution damage has occurred. As the Soil Environment Conservation Act Article 10-3 Paragraph 1 provides that “When there has been a damage due to soil pollution, the applicable polluter must compensate the damages and purify the contaminated soil”, the strict liability and liability of purification are provided on the soil contamination damages. The strict liability provision of polluter in accordance with the Soil Environment Conservation Act Article 10-3 can become very useful means for the sufferer. Therefore, damages caused by pollution at workplace are eligible for compensation as long as the causal relationship between the harmful act and the causal damage are proven. However, as mentioned before, this causes many problems. Even if the existing regulations are amended as Article 44 of the “Revision for EPA,” submitted as government bill in May of 2009, it only adds problem on top of another one. Enactment of this Environmental Responsibility Act mainly focuses on compensation to victims for damage, but also has preventive function for infringement. Strengthening environmental responsibility through strict liability in Environmental Responsibility Act not only entrusts environmental protection to regulations, but also corresponds with the general tendency that inserts the market economic measures. That is, through rigorous environmental responsibility, the burden in environment-hazardous production process eventually will lead to development of environmental-friendly production and process. 토지오염은 통상적으로 토양오염을 의미하는 것이 일반적이다. 토양오염이란 토양에 해로운 각종 물질이 누적됨으로써 토양 본래 상태의 기능을 상실케 하는 것이다. 이러한 토양오염피해의 손해배상청구는 기본적으로 민사상의 손해배상책임법리로 해결할 수밖에 없다. 먼저 피해자는 토양오염이 발생한 경우 민법 제750조에 의한 불법행위로 인한 손해배상청구를 할 수 있다. 그러나 민법 제750조에 기하여 손해배상을 청구를 하기 위해서는 피해자가 가해자의 고의⋅과실, 가해행위의 위법성, 가해행위와 손해발생간의 인과관계를 증명하여야 한다. 이에 따라 피해자가 이를 모두 증명하여 손해배상을 청구한다는 것은 피해자보호에 한계를 보여준다. 또한 토양오염피해가 발생한 경우에 환경정책기본법 제44조가 환경오염에 대한 ‘원인자의 무과실책임’을 규정하고 있으므로, 토양오염피해가 발생한 경우에 환경정책기본법 제44조에 근거하여 손해배상청구를 할 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 토양환경보전법상으로는 피해에 대하여 과실책임이 아닌 무과실책임을 지우고 있으며, 공동의 책임인 경우에는 연대책임(부진정연대책임)을 지우고 있다. 이것은 피해자의 구제를 용이하게 하기 위한 것이다. 그리고 토양정화책임과 그에 따른 비용책임에 대하여도 소급책임, 엄격책임, 연대책임을 지게하고 있다. 다만 천재지변과 전쟁으로 인한 경우에는 면책하고 있다. 책임당사자는 오염유발자와 토양오염시설의 소유 또는 점유자 및 운영자, 그리고 그 시설을 양수한 자 및 인수자로 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 책임당사자가 불명하거나 무자력 등으로 인하여 책임을 질 수 없는 경우가 있어 책임당사자의 범위를 확대시킬 필요성이 있다. 이에 대해 2011년 4월의 개정에서는 그 동안 미비한 제도들을 획기적으로 보완하는 규정을 신설 또는 개정하여 한층 진일보하였다. 즉 오염원인자의 범위를 확대하여 원인자책임의 원칙을 더욱 보완하였고, 토양환경평가를 구체화하여 양도·양수당시에 실시된 토양환경평가 결과에 대한 증거가치를 부여함으로써, 토양오염의 책임소재에 따른 분쟁을 해결하고 토양환경평가를 자율적으로 실시하도록 하였다. 이러한 환경책임법의 제정은 피해자에 대한 피해의 보상을 주목적으로 하나, 또한 이것을 넘어서 침해의 예방목적도 가지고 있다고 할 것이다. 무과실책임에 의한 환경책임법을 통한 환경책임의 강화는 환경의 보호를 규제법에만 맡기지 않고, 시장경제적인 장치를 삽입하는 일반적인 경향에 상응하는 것이다. 즉 엄격한 환경책임으로 환경위험적인 생산과정에 대한 부담은 환경 친화적인 생산과 생산과정을 개발하도록 유도하는 것이 된다.

환경오염피해에 대한 원인자의 무과실책임 - 대법원 2017. 2. 15. 선고 2015다23321 판결 -

전경운 ( Chun Kyoung Un ) 법조협회 2018 최신판례분석 Vol.67 No.2

The Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1 recognizes the strict liability of the polluter for all environmental pollution damages. In this Supreme Court ruling, however, explicitly recognizes the specific force of Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1. Therefore, this study examines the meaning of strict liability of polluter pursuant to the Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1, its legislative problems, recognition of its specific force, and other relevant discussions, and it also examines whether it is feasible to recognize such specific force. According to the Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 Paragraph 1, it recognizes not the strict liability of the operators for environmental pollution, but recognizes the strict liability of polluters for all environmental pollution or environmental damages. Such regulations can be viewed as laws extremely faithful to victim protection caused by environmental pollution or environmental damages. However, i) it recognizes the strict liability of polluters for all environmental pollution damage, thus having an excessively broad scope of application, ii) that the Principle of fault liability should be maintained for environmental pollution caused by daily life of the people, iii) legal perspective that can erode the meaning of numerous special laws that recognize strict liability and even make them useless by a special law on specific environmental pollution, and iv) that the Act on Remedy for Environmental Pollution Damage was enacted to overcome the problems of strict liability of the polluter. When considering the above, it is necessary to reconsider recognizing specific force. Moreover, it is necessary to legislate the Framework Act on Environmental Policy Article 44 in order to clearly resolve such disputes.

환경오염피해에 대한 사업자의 무과실책임

김영경 경희대학교 법학연구소 2016 경희법학 Vol.51 No.4

In order to spread the risk of environmental pollution accident and to relieve victims quickly and fairly from environmental pollution, ‘Act on Remedy for Environmental Pollution Damageenacted in December 2014, began to enforce from 2016. This act consists of 49 provisions in 6 chapters in all. The purpose of this law is to relieve victims from environmental pollution damage by clarifying liability for environmental pollution damage and establishing an effective damage relief system by reducing the burden of proof of victims. Based on this purpose, the Act contains the strict liability of the operator of the facility that emitted pollutants, the presumption of causation, the claim to information, the introduction of liability insurance and government indemnities against environmental damages. However, the most important point of this law is that the operator of the facility is liable for the damages caused by environmental pollution in connection with installation and operation of the facility. The act sets the maximum amount of compensation to 200-million dollar, and considering the hazard level and the consequent result, it sets the amount of liability to be levied by the facility operator in the attached table 2 in the enforcement ordinance. And also, the act makes it a rule to compensate the damage with money, but exceptionally, it legalized restitution. Thus, it allows the claim for restitution and the recourse for the restitution cost. In addition, it restricts the facility operator from exercising the right to indemnity. These are new legislative attempts that can not be found in Korean laws relevant to strict liability. The legislation recognize the strict liability for damage from environmental pollution caused from certain facilities, not tort liability is valid. As many new regulations have been enacted, it will be important to properly operate. In addition, legislative content will be assessed accurately during such operations. 사전예방이 쉽지 않은 대규모 환경오염사고에 대한 사회적 경각심이 고조될 수밖에 없는 상황에서, 환경오염사고의 위험을 분산하고 환경오염피해로부터의 신속하고 공정한 피해자 구제를 위하여 환경오염피해구제법이 2014년 12월 제정되어 2016년부터 시행되고 있다. 환경오염피해구제법은 총 6장 49개 조문으로 구성되어 있다. 동법은 환경오염피해에 대한 배상책임을 명확하게 하고 피해자의 입증부담을 경감하여 실효적인 피해구제 제도를 확립함으로써 환경오염피해로부터 충실하고 신속하게 피해자를 구제하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이러한 목적을 기반으로 하여 사업자의 무과실책임, 인과관계 추정, 정보청구권, 환경오염피해배상을 위한 환경책임보험의 도입과 정부에 의한 환경오염피해 보상제도 등을 규정하고 있다. 그러나 동법에서 가장 핵심적인 내용은 사업자의 무과실책임을 인정하여 시설의 설치・운영과 관련하여 환경오염피해가 발생한 때에는 해당 시설의 사업자가 그 피해를 배상하도록 한 점이다. 동법은 최고 2천억원의 배상책임한도액을 설정하고, 시설의 위해도와 피해의 결과 등을 고려하여 동법 시행령 별표 2에서 사업자의 책임한도액을 설정하고 있다. 금전배상을 원칙으로 하지만 예외적으로 원상회복주의를 인정하고 있고, 생태적 손해의 경우에는 손해의 원상회복청구 및 원상회복비용의 상환청구를 인정하고 있다. 이외에도 사업자의 구상권 행사를 제한하는 등 우리나라 무과실책임법에서 기존에 찾아볼 수 없던 새로운 내용을 포함하고 있다. 사업자의 무과실책임에 대하여 행위책임을 배제하고 일정한 시설로부터 발생한 환경오염피해에 대한 시설책임을 인정한 것은 타당하다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 그 동안 우리나라의 기존 무과실책임법에서 볼 수 없었던 여러 가지 새로운 제도를 입법한 만큼, 향후 얼마나 적절하게 운영하는지가 동법의 가치를 드러내는 데에 관건이 될 것이다. 또한 이러한 운영과정 속에서 입법 내용도 정확한 평가를 받을 수 있을 것이다.

생태환경 침해에 대한 민사법적 과제의 서론적 연구- 생태환경소송 사례와 각국의 법제도의 대응을 중심으로

김성수,가정준,강혁신,위계찬,윤태영,이재우 한국재산법학회 2020 재산법연구 Vol.36 No.4

‘환경보전’은 우리나라를 포함한 대부분의 국가가 지향하는 사회적 정책이다. 환경정책기본법은 ‘환경’을 ‘자연환경’과 ‘생활환경’으로 구분하고, 그 ‘환경’을 침해하는 모습을 기준으로 ‘환경오염’과 ‘환경훼손’으로 구분하고 있다. ‘환경오염’은 사람의 건강이나 환경에 피해를 주는 상태를 말하며 ‘환경오염’의 원인을 제공한 자는 민법상의 불법행위를 원인으로 하거나 또는 ‘환경오염피해구제법’ 또는 ‘환경정책기본법’에 의하여 피해를 입은 사람에게 손해배상책임을 지게 된다. 반면에 ‘환경훼손’은 자연환경의 본래적 기능에 중대한 손상을 주는 상태를 말하는데, ‘환경훼손’의 원인을 제공한 자가 특정할 수 있더라도 이로 인해 피해를 입은 대상은 사람보다는 자연물이 될 가능성이 매우 높다. 이와 같은 자연물 자체의 훼손에 대한 대응은 종래 주로 종래 공법의 영역에서 이루어졌고 민사책임법의 영역에서는 누구에게 어떻게 손해를 배상하고 누가 이러한 ‘환경훼손’을 범하는 불법행위를 저지하고 예방할 수 있는지 지금까지 법논리로 밝혀진 바가 분명하지 않다. 본 논문은 ‘환경훼손’에 의한 ‘생태손해’가 발생하는 경우 우리나라의 상황과 대처 하고 있는 현황을 서술하고 그 해결책을 위한 서론적 연구로 우리나라의 문제점을 기초로 다른 국가, 독일, 프랑스, 미국, 중국, 일본 등에서는 유사한 상황들과 법적인 논의를 비교해 보았다. 무엇보다도 자연물자체가 소송의 주체로 자신에게 입은 손해 즉 생태손해에 대하여 어떻게 구제받을 수 있는지의 문제에 대한 그 논의를 살펴보았다. 독일, 미국, 중국, 그리고 일본은 법원에서 자연물이 직접적으로 소송의 주체로 자신들의 피해를 배상받는 것을 인정하지 않았지만 그 필요성에 대한 많은 논의가 있었다. 반면 프랑스 법원은 자연물을 소송 원고로 인정하였고 이에 대한 손해배상을 인정하였고 판례의 변경을 우려하여 입법을 통해 자연물을 소송 원고로 인정하자는 논의까지 발전되고 있다. 우리나라에서는 결론에 이를 만큼의 제대로 된 상세한 논의가 없어 추후 문제로 남겨두었고 외국의 논의도 그런 상황에 있다. 본 논문은 외국의 생태손해에 대한 현재의 논의를 소개하려고 노력하였다. ‘생태손해’는 직접적으로 인간의 생명이나 신체 또는 재산에 발생한 손해가 아니기에 이 문제의 해결을 위하여 누가 주도적으로 시작하여야 하는지가 문제될 수 있다. ‘생태손해’는 ‘환경오염으로 인한 손해’와 마찬가지로 민사책임법의 영역에서도 검토가 필요하다. 이를 위해서는 ‘생태손해’에 대한 사회적 인식과 ‘환경오염으로 인한 손해’와 관련한 법체계 이상의 것을 필요로 한다. 본 논문은 ‘생태손해’가 불법행위책임 등 민사책임법 영역의 대상이 될 수 있는지의 문제에 대한 서론적 연구이며 향후 심층적인 논의를 위한 기초적 연구이다. ‘생태손해’를 민사책임법 영역에서 다루려고 하는 것은 사회적 관심을 증진시키고 ‘생태손해’의 예방, 제거 및 전보에 관한 법적․제도적 대책의 마련에 기여하고자 함이다. 본 논문과 후속연구가 생태손해에 대한 인식의 전환을 위하여 중요하게 기여할 수 있기를 기대한다. ‘Environmental Preservation’ is a social policy that most countries are aiming at. Korea is not exceptional in pursuit with this social policy. ‘Environment’ may be divided into the sectors of ‘natural environment’ and ‘ecologic environment’. Conceptually, it is classified into ‘environmental pollution’ and ‘environmental degradation’ based on the way of infringing the ‘environment’. ‘Environmental pollution’ is a condition that harms people's health or environment. When someone provides the cause of ‘environmental pollution’, he or she is logically responsible for his or her activities'. On the other hand, ‘environmental degradation’ is a condition that seriously damages the original function of the natural environment. Where ‘environmental degradation’ proceeds, the subject who is damaged by this is very likely to be a natural object rather than a person. In this case, it is unclear how the law works so far to preserve ‘ecologic environment’ and how the law prevents illegal activities that cause such ‘environmental degradation’. This paper describes how the law copes with situations in the case of ‘environmental degradation’, which is the so-called ‘ecological damage’, by comparative analysis based on several jurisdictions, Germany, France, USA, China, Japan and Korea. This paper has reviewed how ‘environmental degradation’ can be preserved and cured by law. Legal remedies for damages suffered by natural objects in Germany, the US, China, and Japan have been issued in litigation In result, the natural objects have not been directly compensated for their damages because they are not entitled with right to litigate. There has been a lot of discussion about its necessity. On the other hand, the French court recognized the natural object as plaintiff in a case and developed the argument to legally accept the natural object as a plaintiff through the legislation. ‘Environmental degradation (‘ecological damage’)’ is not a direct damage to human or human property. It can be a question of who can initiate this problem. Due to these problems, legal issue of ‘ecological damage’ should be developed into administrative law centering on the state and local governments as well as ‘tort liability law’. Moreover, for this development, it requires more than the legal system related to ‘environmental damage’ and social recognition of ‘ecological damage’. The ‘ecological damage’ also needs to be changed by the judiciary so that it becomes the subject of ‘tort liability’. In order to deal with ‘ecological damages’ in the area of ‘​tort liability’, it is necessary to promote social interests and discuss ‘ecological damages’ in the institutional domain.