Livestock Farmer Who Spread 'Foot-and-Mouth Disease'... Supreme Court Rules Local Governments Cannot Claim Damages

260 Pigs Sold from Sejong-si to Cheorwon Violating 'Movement Restriction Order'

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has made its first ruling that even if a movement restriction order due to foot-and-mouth disease is violated, local governments cannot directly claim damages from those responsible for the spread of livestock infectious diseases.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Noh Tae-ak) announced on the 23rd that it overturned the lower court ruling that favored Cheorwon County, Gangwon Province, in a damages lawsuit filed against Mr. A and others engaged in livestock farming in Sejong City, and remanded the case to the Uijeongbu District Court.

In 2015, Mr. A and others ignored the pig movement restriction order aimed at preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease and sold 260 piglets in Sejong City to Mr. B, a farm owner in Cheorwon County. As a result, foot-and-mouth disease spread to Mr. B's farm as well.

Accordingly, Cheorwon County culled 618 pigs and other livestock owned by Mr. B and initially paid a total of approximately 170 million won as compensation and livelihood stabilization funds. Subsequently, they filed a damages lawsuit against Mr. A and other livestock farmers and intermediaries in Sejong City.

The first and second trials recognized the liability of Mr. A and others for damages. However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. It ruled that local governments cannot directly act as victims to claim damages.

The court stated, "The movement restriction order stipulated in the Livestock Infectious Disease Prevention Act is intended solely to prevent the occurrence or spread of livestock infectious diseases. The local governments that pay culling compensation, as prescribed by the Livestock Infectious Disease Prevention Act, cannot use such provisions as grounds to seek damages based on unlawful acts."

Furthermore, the court ruled, "Even if the cause of the spread of livestock infectious diseases, which led to the payment of culling compensation, was a violation of the movement restriction order, it is difficult to consider the payment of culling compensation as damages that have a substantial causal relationship with the violation of the movement restriction order, or to view that local governments can directly seek culling compensation as damages from defendants without other legal grounds."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.