Seoul High Court Recognizes State Liability for Damages in Humidifier Disinfectant Case for the First Time

First Instance Loss Reversed on Appeal
Three Victims Awarded 3 to 5 Million Won
Government to Decide on Further Appeal After Reviewing Judgment

An appellate court ruling has been issued stating that the state must compensate victims who died or suffered illnesses from using humidifier disinfectants. This is the first ruling recognizing the state's liability for compensation in the humidifier disinfectant disaster.

On the afternoon of the 6th, when the second trial verdict of the civil lawsuit filed by humidifier disinfectant victims against the state was delivered, lawyers Lee Jeong-il (left) and Song Ki-ho are answering questions from the press at the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

The Seoul High Court Civil Division 9 (Presiding Judge Seong Ji-yong) overturned the first-instance ruling that dismissed the damages claim filed by five victims of the humidifier disinfectant disaster, including Mr. Kim, against the state, and on the 6th partially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court ordered the state to pay consolation money ranging from 3 million to 5 million KRW to three victims.

The court stated, "It was judged that the exercise of discretion by public officials belonging to the defendant during the chemical substance hazard assessment and announcement process had significantly lost rationality, lacked social validity, and objectively lost legitimacy, thus being unlawful."

The court further pointed out, "Despite conducting an insufficient chemical substance hazard assessment, the results were hastily reflected to announce that the substances 'do not correspond to toxic substances,' as if general safety was guaranteed, and this was left unattended for nearly ten years. As a result, these chemicals could be imported and distributed without special regulation, used in humidifiers, causing the very tragic damages we see today."

The court dismissed claims from two of the five plaintiffs, stating, "Two of the plaintiffs have already received a substantial amount of relief benefits under the Humidifier Disinfectant Victim Relief Act, which are of the same nature as consolation money, so they cannot claim additional compensation." The consolation amounts for the remaining three plaintiffs were determined considering the support funds and relief benefits they had already received.

Previously, five victims of the humidifier disinfectant disaster, including Mr. Kim, filed a damages lawsuit in August 2014 against the state and manufacturers of humidifier disinfectants such as Oxy Reckitt Benckiser (Oxy), Sepyu, Hanbit Chemical and Lotte Shopping who manufactured and supplied 'Oxy Ssak Ssak New Humidifier Dangbun,' and Yongma Industry, which subcontracted to produce private brand (PB) products, claiming they suffered damages such as death or treatment for lung diseases after purchasing and using the disinfectants.

Following a settlement, Oxy, Hanbit Chemical, Yongma Industry, and Lotte Shopping were removed from the lawsuit, leaving only Sepyu and the state as defendants.

In the first trial, the court recognized Sepyu's liability for compensation but dismissed the claim against the state due to insufficient evidence. The court judged, "The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is insufficient to recognize the Republic of Korea's state liability, and there is no other evidence to support such recognition." The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

Immediately after the verdict, the legal representative of the victims stated, "This meaningful ruling confirms that the state is not merely a passive entity that help victims charitably or supports compensation, but has a legal responsibility to compensate the victims." He strongly urged the state not to appeal the ruling, considering the long-suffering pain of the victims.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment announced after the high court ruling, "We will review the judgment and consult with related ministries to decide whether to appeal."