군용비행장 소음소송의 실체법 및 소송법상 쟁점에 관한 검토

Abstract

On April 11, 2001, as the first ruling to admit the national liability for damages to residents living near the Maehyang-ri shooting range was rendered, the litigations to claim damages caused by noise has been rapidly increased. In particular, recently, the lawsuits tended to be grouped, and in the case of noise lawsuits related to K2 Air Force Base in Dong-gu, Daegu, which was first filed in 2001 and concluded by the Supreme Court in 2011, ten years later, more than 150,000 plaintiffs were participated. This noise litigation is not only socially expensive due to the government"s financial burden, the possibility of new disputes over contingency fees with lawyers, and repeated claims for damages every three years.<BR> The enactment of the Military Noise Compensation Act and the establishment of a loss compensation system, like civil airports, is encouraging in that it prevents the inefficiency of resolving noise disputes through the payment of compensation for emotional distress. However, regardless of the establishment of the loss compensation scheme, because claims for damages are still available, noise litigations may continue in some cases. And as the first compensation under the Military Noise Compensation Act will be initiated only after 2022, many unresolved cases are and will be pending in courts. In particular, in the case of administrative loss compensation and civil damage compensation, there should be no significant difference in the total amount of compensation, so that additional disputes can be prevented. Since it is necessary to refer to the law of the substance law and the law of litigation law even after the ｢Noise Compensation Act｣, it is still necessary to study them.<BR> In this context, if we look at the substantive laws, we can figure out our courts have established a theory of strict liability for damages caused by defects in the installation and management of the objects, so that the victims of noise lawsuits only need to prove that the degree of damage they have suffered exceeds the acceptance limit, other than proving the state"s will or negligence or physical and external defects of the objects. Our court provides several factors to consider when setting the limit, but there is a problem that it is oversimplified or uniformly set. In addition, it is considered that the problem of repeatedly filing a lawsuit every three years is to be resolved by allowing a action for future performance in the form of periodic payments, and subsequent changes to circumstances must be resolved through a claim for Modification of Judgment for Periodic Payment.