생명 및 신체의 안전에 대한 국가의 보호의무

The National Obligation of Protection on the Safety of Life and Body - Focusing on the Decisions of Humidifier Disinfectant Damage Case and Japan s Sennan Asbestos Case -

In the middle of being progressed an investigation into a manufacturer and a distributor in relation to humidifier disinfectant damage, and of being reported an issue of compensation for the damage through the press, the government is showing passive attitude toward responsibility for this. By the way, PHMG/PGH, which are major components of humidifier disinfectant, were designated as toxicant in Australia s NICNAS and America s EPA in 2003. Nevertheless, our country judged that it is not toxicant and observation material based on data that were submitted by an applicant at that time of the harmful screening on humidifier disinfectant in 2003. In accordance with the regulations of the Hazardous Chemicals Control Act in those days, the government needed to decide on whether or not being harmful based on this after asking for the submission of the test certificate on oral, percutaneous or inhalation toxicity depending on exposure route according to the use. However, the government didn t implement this. As a result, a horrible result of being appeared numerous victims was caused. In Austria and Switzerland following 2006, PHMG/PGH were used only for disinfection by sterilization in a place without a person based on the findings of one university. Even disinfection was recommended a method of spraying through a machine, not a person. On the other hand, in our country, PGH and PHMG were being distributed to the general with being used as major component of humidifier disinfectant without being separated from toxicant and observation material. With reaching September of 2012 following the occurrence of a humidifier disinfectant victim, it was finally designated as toxicant pertinent to the Hazardous Chemicals Control Act. Accordingly, the primary responsibility for the occurrence of damage is naturally put in a manufacturer and a distributer. It cannot be denied the responsibility of a nation that is managing and supervising chemicals and monopolizing safety test on it. Moreover, a nation has obligation of protecting the safe of people s life and body. Thus, its responsibility cannot be considered to be small at all. Watching the progress of this case, it cannot help recalling the Decisions of the Highest Court on Sennan Asbestos Case in Japan in which the state responsibility was recognized in the recently environmental dispute case. This judgment is not what extensively recognized the state responsibility, but has great implication in that suggested the judgment standard for its illegality with firstly acknowledging the state responsibility, and in that became an opportunity of intensifying the national obligation of protection on safety of people s life and body. Hence, the aim here is to re-illuminate the state responsibility for the recently humidifier disinfectant case through the process of the decision of the Highest Court on Sennan Asbestos Case in Japan, and to suggest direction to which our country s judgment will need to advance henceforth in relation to the state responsibility in an environmental dispute case based on this.