The Liability on the Damage of Soil Pollution

토양오염의 피해에 대한 책임

  • Cho, Eun-Rae (Institute for comparative law, Pusan University of Foreign Studies)
  • 조은래 (부산외국어대학교 비교법연구소)
  • Published : 2005.12.01


Soil is polluted by an agricultural chemicals, the effluence of a crystal and sewage sludge, illegal discharging of waste water or waste matter and so on. Soil pollution that accompanies a groundwater and the crops contamination has a large effect on people's living. By polluters pay principle, when a soil was polluted, polluters take the responsibility of clean-up and compensation for damages. The character of the responsibility is a strict liability. When joint polluters exist in a soil pollution, they bear collective responsibility. But they are exempted from obligation in case of a natural calamity and war. The polluters who are poor contribution of pollution take a partition responsibility but it is not easy to prove that. The concerned parties of purification liability in a soil pollution are polluter, an owner or occupant of a contaminated site, and a grantee. But when we do not appoint the polluter or he cannot do a cleanup, municipal must put in effect the purification. In such a case, another parties who are related to the contamination should take upon themselves a liability. The province of responsible parties, therefore, is required to extend to an owner or operator of a facility, a carrier and lender.


  1. 趙顯權, 1999, 環境法, 法律文化院
  2. 趙弘植, 1998, '土壞環境被害에 관한 法的 責任', 환경법연구 제20, 韓國環境法學會
  3. 洪天龍, 1992, '環境汚染被害의 救濟', 환경법연구, 14, 韓國環境法學會
  4. 加藤一郞.森島昭夫.大塚直.柳憲一郞, 1996, 土壞汚染と企業の責任, 有斐閣
  5. 多賀谷晴敏, 1996, '包括的環境對處補償責任法(슈퍼基金法)', 世界の環境法, 國際比較環境法セン夕
  6. 淡路剛久.寺西俊一, 1997, 公害環境法理論の新たな展開, 日本評論事
  7. 稻田仁士, 1995, アメリカ環境法, 木鐸社
  8. 東京海上火災保險株式會社 編, 1995, 環境リスクと環境法(美國 編), 有斐閣
  9. 植田和弘, 1990, 'ス一パ一フンドの中間決算書-CERCLAからSARAへ', 公害硏究
  10. 志田 愼太郞, 1996, '美國における土壤.地下水汚染の淨化對策', 環境硏究, 104
  11. 野村好弘, 1993, '公害被害者救濟のあり方-公害法と公害防止事業費事業者負擔法を素材とし' ジュリス卜, 1015號
  12. 原田尙彦, 1995, 環境法, 弘文堂
  13. An Emerging Doctrine,
  14. B. F. Goodrich Co v. Murtha, 697 F. Supp. 89, 19 ELR 20357 (D. Conn. 1988)
  15. United States v. Monsanto Co. 858 F. 2d 160, 19 ELR 20085 (4th Cir. 1988), cert, denied 490 U. S. 1106 (1989)
  16. United States v. Shell Oil Co., 23 CWLR 770 (C. D. Cal. Jan. 16, 1992)
  17. United States v. Stringfellow, 661 F. Supp. 1053, 17 ELR 21134(C. D. Cal. 1987)
  18. United States v. Marisol, Inc., 725 F. Supp. 833(M. D. Pa. 1989)