지난 8월 26일자 The Japan Times Online판에 따르면,
오사카 고등법원이 석면 보상에 대한 판결을 기각했다고 합니다.
석면피해 근로자 및 거주민들에게 4억3천5백만엔을 보상하라는 지방법원의 원심은 오사카 고등법원에 의하여 8월 15일 기각되었다.
2006년 5월 32명의 원고(30명의 석면공장 근로자와 2명의 동거인)는 정부를 대상으로 9억 4천 만 엔의 피해보상소송을 했다.
그리고 2010년 5월, 오사카지방법원은, 석면노출저감노력에 대한 정부의 조치가 실패했음을 인정하여, 1939년과 2005년 사이에 근로한 23명의 근로자에게 4억3천5백만엔을 지불하라는 판결을 내렸습니다.
법원은 석면폐의 위험을 정부가 알아야 했으나 그렇지 못했고, 따라서 1960년에 제정된 진폐법에 환기장치의 설치를 (강제)요구하지 못했던 것은 불법적이라고 판결 내린 바 있었고, 이것은 석면노출과 관련하여 정부의 실패를 인정한 첫 번째 사례가 되었습니다.
그러나 정부의 입장에서는 전국의 여러 지방 법원에서 계류중인 유사한 소송에 영향을 미칠 수 있다는 생각에서 협상을 거부한 채 고등법원에 항소를 했었습니다.
=================
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110826a8.html
Friday, Aug. 26, 2011
High court rejects ruling on asbestos compensation
Kyodo
OSAKA — The Osaka High Court repealed on Thursday a lower court decision that ordered the government to pay ¥435 million in damages to workers, residents and relatives who said they contracted asbestosis, lung cancer and other diseases due to the state's failure to reduce asbestos exposure in Osaka Prefecture.
Presiding Judge Jun Miura acted on appeals from both the government and plaintiffs in overturning the Osaka District Court's May 2010 ruling. Judge Sumio Tanaka read the decision on behalf of Miura, who has retired.
The 32 plaintiffs — 30 workers and two family members of those who lived in the Sennan area, where several spinning mills were concentrated — sued in May 2006 seeking ¥940 million from the government.
In May 2010, the Osaka District Court held the government responsible for failing to take measures against asbestos exposure and ordered it to pay ¥435 million to 23 former employees who had worked at the plants between 1939 and 2005.
The court ruled that the state must have known about the dangers of lung asbestosis by 1959 and declared it illegal that it failed to require the mills to set up ventilation equipment by 1960, when the pneumoconiosis law was enacted.
But the district court rejected claims from nearby residents and a former worker who hadn't worked in the area, after the law was enacted. The district court ruling was the first in the country to hold the state responsible for failing to act on asbestos exposure.
The plaintiffs appealed the lower court ruling after a government appeal, and sought to settle the matter via talks with the state in appeals court.
But the government rejected the talks because they would affect similar suits pending at several district courts across the country.
