The plaintiff conducted a soil purification project in connection with an urban development project in Michuhol-gu, Incheon. The defendant was carrying out construction work at a construction site 4 to 5 kilometers away from the project site. However, the plaintiff found fluoride in the soil brought in from the defendant's construction site, which exceeded the standard for residential areas under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, and incurred costs to purify the contaminated soil. The plaintiff filed a claim for compensation worth KRW 3.4 billion, claiming that the defendant, a construction company, should bear the above costs.

​The first instance court found the defendant, a construction company, responsible for the purification and recognized its liability under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, and awarded KRW 900 million of the claim, which was appealed by both parties. We represented the defendant on appeal.

Among environmental protection laws, the Soil Environment Conservation Act is the basis for many of the issues raised in recent reconstruction and redevelopment sites. In particular, “fluoride” is a major component of granite and is often naturally generated, so the standards have been significantly relaxed in developed countries, but the Soil Environment Conservation Act of Korea has not changed the standards since its enactment. However, under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, the liability for purification and compensation for damages in the event of a spill or leak of soil contaminants is significantly enhanced by statutory strict liability, and the definitions of “contaminated soil,” the scope of the person responsible for purification, and the relationship between purification and compensation for damages have not been established.

We first clarified the purpose and definitions of the concepts in the Soil Environment Conservation Act and emphasized that the defendant, a construction company, is not a person in charge of remediation under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, and that the plaintiff, who is conducting soil remediation, has a duty of care. Furthermore, we emphasized that the liability under the Soil Environment Conservation Act is not a general liability that extends limitlessly. We also argued that the defendant, a construction company, was not recognized as having a minimum foreseeability or causal relationship to the fact of soil contamination embedded in the ground.

 
​

The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the plaintiff's claims in their entirety. In its judgment, the court cited the same reasoning that we developed in the appeal. Soil contamination can be found unexpectedly at construction sites, and who should pay for its purification frequently becomes an issue, especially when it is transported off-site.

This case is expected to be a major reference case on the scope of liability under the Soil Environment Conservation Act.

​□ Attorneys in charge: Kang Tae-hun, Woo Hyun-soo, Lee Kyu-won