바카라사이트 순위

1. Case summary

We represented Korea Gas Corporation, which had already made a complete compensation to fishers near an LNG production facility, in a case regarding 바카라사이트 순위 claimed by some fishers who had not constituted the fishers eligible for compensation because they resided in locations far remote from the facility.


2. Our argument and role

Assessment of 바카라사이트 순위 in fishery compensation cases like this case are generally conducted according to the relevant fishers’ request for assessment, and then a defendant makes rebuttals by taking a procedure to confirm relevant facts after the result of assessment comes out. Most experts conducting assessment insist the legitimacy of the existing assessment unless there are manifest errors such as calculation mistakes. Courts also accept the result as it is provided by the experts.

Considering the practices as described above, we developed a strategy to cease the practice of instigating fishers to file a suit even though they did not suffer any 바카라사이트 순위 and to enable the defendant to be responsible for 바카라사이트 순위 actually suffered by them. We strongly asserted that the assessment result provided by the plaintiff was not enough to accurately identify the cause of 바카라사이트 순위 alleged by the plaintiff. We requested to make another assessment than the plaintiff’s. In the case where several assessments are made by different experts, a court is required to choose one of the assessments, and should preclude the other assessments. Because it is not easy for courts to pick one of the assessments, it is rare for them to adopt the requests for assessment made by both parties. However, we persuaded the court to adopt our request for assessment. Eventually, the court adopted the assessment requests made by both parties.

The plaintiff and the defendant presented mixed assessment results. We analyzed the assessment report filed by the other party with our expert. We pointed out causes and reasons behind the plaintiff’s wrong assessment, clarifying the unreasonableness of its assessment result. Indeed, the court accepted our argument, and determined that the plaintiff did not suffer any 바카라사이트 순위.

The plaintiff did not specifically identify people who were eligible for compensation. We organized applicable legal theories through related legal precedents, and requested competent authorities to confirm certain factual information. We reviewed the registers of about 300 ship owners and letters received from the competent authorities to substantiate that just about 50 fishers were eligible for compensation among about 300 fishers filing this suit against the defendant.


3. Judgment and implication

Even though the court had the assessment result of the 바카라사이트 순위 amount based on the causal relationship asserted by the plaintiff, it precluded all the result provided by the plaintiff to accept our argument. As a result, the court dismissed all the claims made by the plaintiff.

This case is meaningful in that it shows that 바카라사이트 순위 can be recognized only when the occurrence of actual 바카라사이트 순위 is specifically proved, unlike the past practices in which plaintiffs were able to technically receive a certain amount of compensation money once they filed a lawsuit for damages.


□ Attorneys in charge: Chung In-jin and Kim Ji-hee