Recourse between cleanup obligors and their final shares of remediation cost

1. 01Question

   Under the former Soil Environment Conservation Act, must the senior cleanup obligor bear the remediation cost finally with no recourse against a junior obligor, how is the other obligor's share in Article 10-4(4) determined where a public interest project changed the land category and raised the concern standard, and by which land category is that standard set when the register does not match the actual state of the land?

2. 02Holding

   The senior obligor bears the cost finally as a principle, but an exception may be allowed in view of self-responsibility and equity, and the final allocation between those obligors must be settled in civil law terms with those principles in mind. Another obligor's share in Article 10-4(4) of the former Act is judged reasonably by weighing the cause of the pollution, the type and amount of the pollutants, each obligor's contribution to the pollution and the cost and its degree of fault, the holder of the benefit from remediation, and how the cost arose; where a public interest project changed the land category, a raised concern standard was applied and the cost rose, that circumstance must be fully taken into account. Where the land was lawfully developed and used but the category change was not carried out or the administrative agency recorded the category wrongly, so that register and actual state diverge, the concern standard should be set by the actual state.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   선순위 정화책임자는 정화비용을 최종적으로 부담하여야 하고, 후순위 정화책임자에게 구상권을 행사하지 못하는 것이 원칙이라고 보아야 한다. 그러나 자기책임의 원칙이나 형평의 원칙에 비추어 선순위 정화책임자가 후순위 정화책임자에게 구상권을 행사하는 것을 허용하여야 하는 예외적인 경우도 충분히 상정할 수 있다.

   Unofficial English translation

   It must be regarded as a principle that the higher-priority remediation responsible person must ultimately bear the remediation costs and may not exercise a right to reimbursement against the lower-priority remediation responsible person. However, in light of the principle of self-responsibility or the principle of equity, exceptional cases in which the higher-priority remediation responsible person must be permitted to exercise a right to reimbursement against the lower-priority remediation responsible person can also be fully contemplated.

3. 03Disposition

   Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

   원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원고등법원에 환송한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Suwon High Court.

4. 04Form of the test

   Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision

   다수의 정화책임자 사이의 구상관계를 규정한 구 토양환경보전법 제10조의4 제4항의 ‘다른 정화책임자의 부담부분’은 토양오염의 원인 및 토양오염물질의 종류와 양, 정화책임자가 토양오염 및 정화비용 발생에 기여한 정도와 귀책사유, 토양오염의 정화에 따른 이익의 귀속 주체와 정화비용의 발생 경위 등을 고려하여 합리적으로 판단하여야 한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The 'share of burden of other remediation responsible persons' under Article 10-4 (4) of the former Soil Environment Conservation Act, which provides for the relationship of reimbursement among multiple remediation responsible persons, must be reasonably determined, taking into account the cause of the soil contamination and the type and quantity of soil contaminants, the degree to which the remediation responsible person contributed to the soil contamination and the incurrence of the remediation costs and the attributable cause, the person to whom the benefit arising from the remediation of the soil contamination is attributable, the circumstances in which the remediation costs were incurred, and the like.

5. 05Factors

   • 정화책임자가 토양오염 및 정화비용 발생에 기여한 정도와 귀책사유
   • 토양오염의 정화에 따른 이익의 귀속 주체와 정화비용의 발생 경위 등을 고려하여 합리적으로 판단하여야 한다
   • 공익사업 등의 시행으로 토지의 지목이 변경됨에 따라 상향된 토양오염의 우려기준이 적용되어 오염토양의 정화비용이 상승하게 된 경우에는 그와 같은 사정을 부담부분 산정에 충분히 고려하여야 한다
   • 자기책임의 원칙이나 형평의 원칙에 비추어 선순위 정화책임자가 후순위 정화책임자에게 구상권을 행사하는 것을 허용하여야 하는 예외적인 경우도 충분히 상정할 수 있다
   • ‘현황’을 기준으로 우려기준을 정함이 타당하다

   Unofficial English translation

   • the degree to which the remediation responsible person contributed to the soil contamination and the incurrence of the remediation costs, and the attributable cause

   • a reasonable determination must be made, taking into account the person to whom the benefit arising from the remediation of the soil contamination is attributable, the circumstances in which the remediation costs were incurred, and the like

   • where, by reason of the land category having been changed through the implementation of a public interest project, etc., such that the heightened concern standards for soil contamination apply and the cost of remediation of contaminated soil increases, such circumstances must be sufficiently taken into account in calculating the share of burden

   • in light of the principle of self-responsibility or the principle of equity, exceptional cases in which the higher-priority remediation responsible person must be permitted to exercise a right to reimbursement against the lower-priority remediation responsible person can also be fully contemplated

   • it is reasonable to determine the concern standards on the basis of the 'current state'

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2010다95390 전원합의체 판결 등 참조

   Unofficial English translation

   See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da95390, en banc judgment, January 19, 2012, etc.

   Decisions referred to

   해당 본문 참조

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   Where a land owner used the land without a development permission and the register category was never changed, is the actual state or the registered category the basis for the concern standard?

   The remand judgment of the Suwon High Court, which must weigh the cost increase from the raised standard and the holder of the benefit of remediation, will show how the shares are finally fixed. Any amendment to Article 10-4 of the Act as amended by Act No. 21065 of 1 October 2025 or to Note 6 to Supplementary Table 3 of the former Enforcement Rules would require this entry to be read again.

Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.