Incidents Involving the Iopc Funds—1992 Fund

INCIDENTS INVOLVING THE IOPC FUNDS—1992 FUND

HEBEI SPIRIT

JUDGMENTS BY THE KOREAN COURTS

Judgments rendered by the Court of First Instance (Seosan Court)

2014

Judgment on the claim by a water park and spa business owner

In April 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claim by a water park and spa business owner. The claimant filed a claim in the amount of KRW 14 754 389 000. Since the claimant did not prove that he had suffered a loss as a consequence of the spill, the Limitation Court rejected the claim. The Seosan Court upheld the Limitation Court’s decision. The claimant has not appealed. The judgment is now final.

Five judgments on the claim by 3060 fisherfolk in Seocheon-gun and Dangjin-gun

In May 2014, the Seosan Court rendered five judgments in respect of claims by 3 060 claimants in Seocheon- gun and Dangjin-gun. In the judgments, the Seosan Court upheld the decision of the Limitation Court and rejected the claims on the basis that the level of oil pollution was minimal and therefore it could not have affected the area and caused the alleged damages. The judgments are now final.

Two judgments on the claims by 111 individuals in Seocheon-gun

In July 2014, the Seosan Court rendered two judgments in respect of claims by 111 claimants in Seocheon- gun and Dangjin-gun. In its judgment in respect of the claims by 110 of the claimants, the Court upheld the decision of the Limitation Court and rejected the claims on the grounds that the claimants had failed to prove that they actually fished for a living in the affected area. In one of the cases, the Court found that the oil pollution had not affected the fishing area used by the claimant and did not cause the damages claimed. All the claimants appealed the judgment. In May and June 2015, the Appeal Court dismissed all the appeals. The judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claim by a number of handgatherers and retail businesses

In July 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claims submitted by one compensation committee on behalf of 247 handgatherers and fish retail business entrepreneurs. The Limitation Court had rejected their claim on the grounds that the items of claim had no causal relationship with the incident and/or were time-barred. In its judgment, the Seosan Court upheld the decision of the Limitation Court and rejected the claim. All the claimants have appealed the judgment. - 2 -

Judgment on the claim by one individual alleging health problems following the incident

In August 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the case of a claimant alleging to have suffered a number of ailments since having participated in the clean-up operations of the Hebei Spirit incident. The Seosan Court upheld the decision of the Limitation Court and decided that the claimant had failed to prove the causal relationship between the oil pollution and the conditions he had developed. The claimant appealed the judgment, but in January 2015 the claimant withdrew the appeal. The Seosan Court’s judgment has now become final.

Judgment on the claim by a flatfish farm owner

In August 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the case of a claimant alleging to have suffered a loss in the amount of KRW 173 553 000 in respect of loss of market confidence suffered as a consequence of the spill. The Limitation Court rejected the claim since the claimant could not prove that the losses actually occurred due to the contamination. The Seosan Court upheld the decision of the Limitation Court. The claimant has not appealed the judgment, which is now final.

Six judgments on the claims by 2 559 individuals in Seosan

In September 2014, the Seosan Court rendered six judgments in respect of claims by 2 559 claimants. In the judgments, the Court upheld the decision of the Limitation Court and rejected the claims, since it found that the claimants had not proven to be genuine handgatherers.

The claimants appealed the judgments. The Appeal Court dismissed all claims. One claimant further appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case is still pending. The judgment for the other claimants is now final.

Nine judgments on the claims by 2 559 handgatherers in Yeonggwang, Gochang and Sinan

In October 2014, the Seosan Court rendered judgments on the claims by 2 559 handgatherers in Yeonggwang, Gochang and Sinan. In its judgments, the Court considered that, despite the fact that there was no fishing ban, the handgatherers would have suffered a total loss during a period of two to four months due to the incident and awarded a total of KRW 11 216 759 760.

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgments, since it found that the Court had allowed for 100% losses even in the absence of a fishing ban for the entirety of that period, when a number of individuals had submitted evidence showing fishery activity during the same period.

In October 2015, the Appeal Court issued a reconciliation decision which was accepted by the parties and this judgment is therefore now final.

Judgments on the claims by 6 843 handgatherers in Boryeong and Hongseong

In October 2014, the Seosan Court rendered judgments on the claims by 6 843 handgatherers in Boryeong and Hongseong. In its judgments, the Court considered that the claims were admissible and awarded them a total of KRW 7 702 227 002.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the case and issued a reconciliation decision that took into account the affected period. The 1992 Fund reviewed the information submitted during the proceedings and accepted the reconciliation decision, which is now final.

Judgment on the claim by four individuals engaged in clean-up activities

In November 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claims presented by four individuals alleging to have been involved in clean-up activities in the Bakripo beach area from March to June 2008. The 1992 Fund had rejected their claims considering the action was not reasonable. In its judgment, the Court rejected their claims since the claimants had failed to show that they had actually performed clean-up activities during the alleged period and that such activities, if carried out, were reasonably required. The claimants appealed the judgment.

The Appeal Court rendered a judgment on 23 May 2016 dismissing the claimants’ appeal. In addition to the reasons based on which the Seosan Court dismissed the claims, the Appeal Court found that the claimants also filed various other claims, such as claims for handgathering, accommodation, restaurant and sales business, and in light of this it would be difficult to find that the claimants were actually engaged in clean-up activities as alleged by them. The claimants appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. In September 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal. The judgment is now final.

Two judgments on the claims by handgatherers, village fisheries, and salt farmers from Hampyeong and Muan

In December 2014, the Seosan Court rendered two judgments covering claims presented by handgatherers, village fisheries and salt farmers from Hampyeong and Muan. In its judgments, the Court upheld the 1992 Fund’s assessment of some claims but rejected the ones it considered unsubstantiated. However, it awarded more than the 1992 Fund’s assessment to a number of claimants.

The claimants appealed the judgments. The 1992 Fund also appealed the judgments in respect of those claims for which the Court awarded an amount that the 1992 Fund considered excessive based on the evidence submitted. The Court of Appeal reviewed the case and issued a reconciliation decision. The 1992 Fund reviewed the information submitted during the proceedings and accepted the reconciliation decision, which is now final.

Judgment on the claims by 2 056 handgatherers from Muan and Sinan

In December 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a further judgment on 142 claims by handgatherers from Muan and Sinan. In its judgment, the court held that, regardless of the fact that there was no official fishing ban in the area, the claimants had still suffered losses for a period corresponding to that of the fishing ban in other areas.

The claimants appealed the judgment. The 1992 Fund has also appealed the judgment, arguing that unsubstantiated losses had been allowed. The Court of Appeal reviewed the case and issued a reconciliation decision that took into consideration the positions of the parties and the evidence submitted in court. The 1992 Fund accepted the reconciliation decision, which is now final. - 4 -

2015

Judgment on the claims by 478 non-fishery claimants and grass eel catchers

In February 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claims by 478 non-fishery claimants and grass eel catchers. The 1992 Fund had rejected the claims since the claimants had failed to prove that they had suffered a loss as a consequence of the contamination and they had failed to provide a valid license to exercise the activity. In its judgment, the Seosan Court upheld the 1992 Fund’s assessment of these claims and rejected all the claims.

The claimants appealed the judgment. The Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal, and the claimants further appealed to the Supreme Court. At the time this document was published, the Supreme Court had not yet held a hearing for this case.

Judgment on the claims by 470 individuals for economic losses

In May 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment with respect to the claims of 470 individuals operating in various businesses including, inter alia, a taxi business, comic book rental shop, newspaper delivery business and boiler sales. The 1992 Fund had originally rejected the claims since the claimants had not submitted sufficient information to support their claims. In its judgment, the Court rejected the claims since it found that there was no evidence supporting that the claimants’ business losses had been due to the incident.

The claimants appealed the judgment. The Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal, yet the claimants further appealed to the Supreme Court. The case is still pending.

Judgment on the claim by a shrimp and sea cucumber farm owner

In August 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the case of a claimant alleging to have suffered a loss in the amount of KRW 1 734 716 000 in respect of the mortality of shrimps and sea cucumbers in his farm caused by oil contamination in the waters caused by the Hebei Spirit incident. The Limitation Court rejected the claim as the claimant could not prove the mortalities actually occurred due to the spilled oil. The Seosan Court upheld the decision of the Limitation Court. The claimant has appealed the judgment.

In May 2015 the Appeal Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal. The claimant appealed again to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the claim in October 2015. This judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claims by 196 handgatherers

In July 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of 196 handgatherer claimants from Yeonggwang-gun. The 1992 Fund had rejected the claims since it had found that the claimants had not suffered a loss because of the contamination. In its judgment, the Court found that the claimants were not genuine handgatherers and therefore dismissed the claimants’ claim.

The claimant appealed the judgment. In June 2016 the Appeal Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal. The Appeal Court’s judgment has become final.

Judgment on the claims by two aquaculture operators

In July 2015 the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of two aquaculture operators claiming for economic losses suffered as a consequence of the contamination. The 1992 Fund had rejected the claims since they claimants had not provided sufficient information to prove that they had suffered a loss. In its judgment, the Court determined that the claimants had failed to prove their alleged damages with sufficient - 5 - evidence and therefore rejected their claims. One of the claimants filed an appeal to the Appeal Court, but the appeal was dismissed for passing the deadline for appeal. This judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claims by three handgatherers in Hongseong

In August 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of three handgatherer claimants from Hongseong. The 1992 Fund had originally assessed the claims at the aggregate amount of KRW 510 000. During the Court proceedings, and after additional information was submitted by the claimant in court, the Court awarded damages to the claimants totalling KRW 1 019 780. The 1992 Fund’s experts reviewed the submitted information as well as the judgment, and the 1992 Fund considered the judgment to be reasonable. This judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claims by 28 handgatherers

In August 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claims by 28 handgatherers. In its judgment, the Court rejected 27 claims since the claimants failed to prove that they were genuine handgatherers. One claimant submitted additional information and the Court assessed the claim at KRW 236 456. The 1992 Fund’s experts reviewed the submitted information as well as the judgment, and the 1992 Fund considered the judgment as reasonable. This judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claim by a Village Fishery Association

In August 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment is in respect of a claim by a Village Fishery Association. The Court adopted the 1992 Fund’s calculation of losses and assessed the claim at KRW 16 094 764. The claimant appealed the judgment.

In June 2016, the Appeal Court reviewed the case and issued a reconciliation decision that took into consideration the evidence submitted in court. The 1992 Fund reviewed the information and accepted the reconciliation decision, which is now final.

Judgment on the claims by two local authorities in Boryeong and Chungcheongnamdo

In October 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of subrogated claims by two local authorities in Boryeong and Chungcheongnamdo for, respectively, costs related to villagers’ labour costs during the clean-up operations after the spill and costs incurred to provide transport and sustenance to students, teachers, city officials and others to various parts of Taean and offshore islands to assist the clean- up operation.

In its judgment, the Seosan Court upheld the decision made by the Limitation Court awarded respectively, KRW 894 965 000 and KRW 4 357 600 to the two local authorities.

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment with respect to the claim for villagers costs, since the reasons provided by the Court for establishing the award were considered unreasonable. With regard to the transport and sustenance cost claim, the 1992 Fund considered the Court’s judgment reasonable.

In June 2016, the Appeal Court issued a reconciliation decision. The 1992 Fund reviewed the information submitted during the proceedings and accepted the reconciliation decision, which is now final.

Judgment on the claim by one handgatherer

In November 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of a claim by one handgatherer. The Court rejected the claim for lack of evidence. The judgment is now final. - 6 -

Judgment on the claims by seven handgatherers

In November 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claims by seven handgatherers. The Court dismissed the claims, as the claimants failed to submit evidence of the alleged damages.

At the time this document was issued, one of the seven claimants had appealed the judgment. The judgment is final for the other six claimants. The Appeal Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal. The claimant did not appeal to the Supreme Court, and the judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claims by 40 handgatherers

In November 2015, the Seosan Court rendered four judgments in respect of the claims by 40 handgatherers. In its judgment, the Court dismissed 15 of the claims, since it found that the claimants failed to prove that they had been engaged in the business of hand gathering at the time of the incident. The Court awarded a total of KRW 15 045 420 to the remaining 25 claimants. The 1992 Fund considered the awarded amount reasonable.

At the time this document was issued, 2 of the 40 claimants had appealed the judgment. The Appeal Court is expected to take a decision on their case in the near future. The judgment is final for the remaining 38 claims. The Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal and, since the claimants did not appeal to the Supreme Court, the judgment is now final.

Judgment on six laver aquaculture and manufacturing businesses in Seocheon

In November 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of six claims by laver aquaculture and manufacturing businesses in Seocheon. The Court dismissed all the claims, as the claimants failed to prove that they had suffered a loss as a consequence of the incident. The claimants have appealed. At the time this document was published, the case is still pending in the Court of Appeal.

Judgment on the claim by the cargo underwriter of the Hebei Spirit

In December 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of a subrogated claim filed by cargo underwriters for the shortage of crude oil at the time of the incident.

The Limitation Court has assessed the claimant’s claim at KRW 2 259 601 474 (£1.3 million). The 1992 Fund filed an objection on the grounds that cargo shortage is not ‘pollution damage’.

The Seosan Court held that the damage alleged by the claimant was shortage of cargo rather than damages resulting from the oil pollution and was not subject to compensation pursuant to the Korean Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act and the 1992 Civil Liability Convention (1992 CLC). The Seosan Court dismissed the claim and the claimant did not appeal. The judgment is now final. - 7 -

2016

Judgment on five claims by five coastal fisherfolk

In January 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment with regard to five individuals engaged in coastal fisheries in Seocheon and Hongseong. In its judgments, the Court rejected all the claims since it found that the claimants had not suffered a loss as a consequence of the incident. The claimants did not appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Five judgments on the claims by 62 fishing boat owners

In February 2016, the Seosan Court rendered five judgments with regard to 62 fishing boat owners. The Court rejected 60 claims since it found that the claimants had not suffered a loss as a consequence of the incident. The Court awarded damages to two claimants totalling KRW 439 722. The 1992 Fund’s experts reviewed the judgments, and the 1992 Fund considered the judgments reasonable.

At the time this document was issued, three of the claimants had appealed the judgment on their claim. The judgments became final with respect to the remaining 59 claimants. The Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal and, since the claimants did not appeal to the Supreme Court, the judgment is now final.

Judgment on 41 claims for loss of accommodation, restaurant, and karaoke bar business and other claims from Boryeong

In January 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment with respect to 40 claims for loss of accommodation, restaurant, karaoke bar business and claims by employees for loss of wages. The Court dismissed most of the claims on the grounds that the claimants did not hold licenses for the business activities in question at the relevant time.

In its judgment, the Court awarded compensation to four claimants who had been employed by restaurants in Boryeong, who were either laid off or had their wages reduced in the months following the incident. The Court considered that, in view of the location of the restaurant, it was inevitable that the restaurant owners would have to lay off their employees as a result of the incident.

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment since it considered that the claimants’ damages resulting from the redundancies was directly due to the restaurant owners’ business decision to terminate the employment or to reduce the salary of their employees. The fact that other businesses in the area did not act in the same way further demonstrated that the loss suffered by the claimants was not due to the incident but due to the independent decision of the restaurant owners. Therefore, the owners’ decisions to lay off employees should be considered a wrongful termination under Korean law and the 1992 Fund should not be liable for the damages arising from this wrongful termination of employment.

In January 2017, the Appeal Court issued a judgment upholding the Seosan Court’s judgment and awarded damages to the employees. The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a hearing for this case.

Judgment on 110 claims from individual businesses in Dangjin-gun

In January 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of claims by 110 non-fishery related businesses in Dangjin-gun. The Court dismissed 109 claims as the claimants did not hold licenses or permits for their business trade. In one case, the Court found that the claimant, although in possession of a license, failed to submit sufficient evidence of his loss and dismissed the claim. This judgment is now final. - 8 -

Judgment on 17 claims from individual businesses in Taean-eup

In January 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of 17 non-fishery claimants from Taean- eup. The Court dismissed all the claims for lack of evidence. The claimants appealed the judgment. The Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal, and the claimants further appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Judgment in respect of claims by seven claimants engaged in tourism-related activities or retail businesses In February 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of three claims by restaurant businesses, two claims for loss of accommodation business, one claim for loss of karaoke business and one claim for loss of supermarket business. Whilst the Court admitted damages for one of the claims for lost accommodation business, the Court dismissed the rest of the claims. In that case, the Court concluded that since the claimant’s minbak facilities are located near a famous tourist sight, it could be presumed that the claimant catered to tourists as well.

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment only in respect of the accommodation claim, arguing that the claimant himself had stated that he did not cater to tourists and that his main customer base was construction workers. Furthermore, the claimant had not submitted sufficient evidence to prove a causal relationship between the claim and the Hebei Spirit incident.

In November 2016, the Appeal Court reviewed the evidence submitted by the claimant in court, which proved that he catered for both tourists and workers and issued a reconciliation decision to this effect. The 1992 Fund accepted the reconciliation decision. The decision is now final.

Judgment in respect of claims by five claimants engaged in restaurant or retail businesses

In March 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of five claimants engaged in restaurant or retail businesses. In its judgment, the Court confirmed the amount already assessed by the 1992 Fund for the claimant engaged in the restaurant business. The Court assessed the other claims on the basis of the information provided in Court. The 1992 Fund and its experts reviewed the information provided and considered the Court’s decision reasonable. The claimants did not appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Judgment on the claim by a fisherman and accommodation business operator

In December 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claim by a fisherman and fish seller who also operated an accommodation business. The Seosan Court accepted the losses suffered for the handgathering and fish selling business, but dismissed the claimant’s remaining claim amount since the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove his loss. The claimant appealed the judgment. At the time this document was published, the Appeal Court had not yet set a hearing date for the case.

Judgment on the claim by a marine leisure activities provider

In December 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claim by a marine leisure activity provider. The 1992 Fund had originally rejected the claim since the claimant had been operating the business without the proper permits. In its judgment, the Court found that the claimant did not hold a proper permit to use the public waters and the marine leisure equipment. The Court further found that the claimant had failed to prove his damages, and therefore it rejected the claim. The claimant appealed the judgment. At the time this document was published, the Appeal Court had not yet set a hearing date for the case. - 9 -

Judgment by a claimant providing modernisation services to aquaculture facilities

On 12 December 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of a claimant who was engaged in the business of providing modernisation services and technical advice to oyster farm facilities in Taean. In its judgment, the Seosan Court dismissed the claim since the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove his loss. The claimant appealed the Seosan Court’s judgment, but the Appeal Court had not scheduled the hearing date yet.

Judgment on the claim of various businesses and boat crews in Seosan

In December 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of a fishery retail business, a fishery wholesale/retail business in Seosan, and two crew claims. In its judgment, the Seosan Court dismissed the claims of the fishery retail business and crew claims since the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove their loss. With respect to fishery wholesale/retail business, the Court only admitted the causal relationship between the loss of the claimant’s wholesale business and the incident since the claimant procured his supply of fish from the polluted coastline. The Court however found that there was not a causal link between the loss of claimant’s retail business and the incident, since the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove its loss. All claimants have appealed the judgment. At the time this document was published, the Appeal Court had yet to schedule a hearing date for these cases.

Judgment by a number of aquaculture facilities in Taean and Seocheon

In December 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of oyster farming in Taean and Seocheon, laver aquaculture in Seocheon, ark clam aquaculture in Taean, short neck clam aquaculture in Taean. In its judgment, the Seosan Court dismissed the claims for the laver and clam farmers since the claimants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove their loss. As the claimants did not appeal, the judgment has become final.

The Court admitted the losses for oyster farming in Taean, ark clam aquaculture in Taean claim in part. The Fund appealed the judgment in respect of oyster farming and ark clam aquaculture in Taean arguing that the claimants’ ‘contracts for exercise of fishery right’ constituted a ‘lease agreement for fishery right’ which is prohibited under the Korean Fisheries Act, and thus, the claimants were earning illegal income. At the time this document was published, the Appeal Court had not yet set a hearing date.

Judgment in respect of claims by two local authorities for promotional festivals

In February 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claims by two local authorities for costs incurred for setting up and running promotional festivals in the affected area. The 1992 Fund had appealed the judgment with respect to the claim for costs incurred by a local authority for the running of a promotional festival to mitigate economic losses in the affected area since, whilst analysing the supporting information provided in Court, it was found that part of the costs had been incurred by a different agency.

In December 2016, the Appeal Court dismissed the 1992 Fund’s appeal. In its judgment, the Court found that, since the costs had been incurred and the activities could be considered as a reasonable mitigation measure, the claims were admissible. The 1992 Fund did not appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Claim for costs for establishing/operating a local Environmental Health Centre

In February 2016, the Seosan Court had rendered a judgment in respect of the claims by one local authority and one ministry with respect to costs incurred for setting up and running an Environmental Health Centre established after the incident. In its judgment, the Court awarded the local authority and the ministry the full amount of their claims, KRW 57 725 000 and KRW 395 000 000, respectively. - 10 -

The 1992 Fund had appealed the judgment since the claimant had failed to establish the reasonableness of having the Environmental Health Centre at some distance of the affected area.

In December 2016, the Appeal Court upheld the judgment. The Appeal Court considered that those who participated in the clean up and the local residents would have been exposed to various harmful substances contained in the spilled oil, and a substantial number of them would have suffered from headaches, difficulty in breathing and skin problems. In addition, the Court concluded that those who lived closer to the polluted area and those who participated in the clean up for a longer period would show worse health conditions.

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court since, although the Court had considered that a substantial number of local residents and those who participated in the clean-up activity had complained of headaches and difficulty in breathing, there was no scientific evidence to support that the conditions listed in the complaints would have been caused by the contamination from the Hebei Spirit incident. Furthermore, the 1992 Fund considered that the scope of operations of the Environmental Health Centre was a disproportionate measure taken by the authorities that was not commensurate with the potential threat posed by the spilled oil, and that its location in Taean, i.e. at some distance from the affected area, appeared to conflict with the aims for setting up the Environmental Health Centre.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is expected later in the year.

Claim for the costs to conduct surveys on short-term effect of oil spill to the villagers and those who participated in the clean-up activity

In July 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of a claim by the Ministry of Environment totalling KRW 3.8 billion (£2.7 million), for costs related to surveys on the short-term effect of the oil spill on the villagers and people who were engaged in clean-up activities and the costs for the operation of an Environmental Health Centre established in the affected area after the incident. The 1992 Fund had rejected the claim since the claimant had failed to prove a causal link between the contamination and the studies carried out, as well as to prove the reasonableness of the Environmental Health Centre. In its judgment, the Court awarded the Republic of Korea the full amount of the claim, which the 1992 Fund appealed.

In December 2016, the Appeal Court upheld the Seosan Court’s judgment. In its judgment, the Appeal Court considered that spilled oil would contain harmful substances such as volatile organic compounds, and that therefore, it could be reasonably presumed that such harmful substances would have an adverse effect on human health, since those who participated in the clean up and the local residents complained of headaches, difficulty in breathing, and skin problems. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Ministry of Environment conducted the survey in order to minimise possible damage to health of local villagers and participants in the clean-up activity, the Court concluded that the Ministry would not have incurred in such costs if the incident had not occurred.

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. The Fund defended that the surveys were carried out for unnecessarily long period of time and that their geographical scope (i.e. including all villagers) was too broad and was not proportionate with potential threat posed by the spilled oil. In addition the Fund defended that the surveys were not aimed at minimising the impact of the contamination but only to monitoring the short-term effect of an oil spill.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is expected later in the year.

Judgment on the claim by a number of oyster, laver and aquaculture operators

In December 2016, the Seosan Court issued a judgment on the claims by a number of aquaculture operators. The claimants had argued that they held ‘contracts for exercise of fishery right’ with the Fishing Villages of - 11 - each aquaculture farm and were engaged in oyster farming. The 1992 Fund had rejected the claim since, in accordance with Korean law, only the members of a Fishing Village have the right to engage in fishery within the Fishing Village’s district, and the claimants did not belong to the Fishing Village where they allegedly carried out their activities. The 1992 Fund argued that the claimants’ ‘contracts for exercise of fishery right’ constituted a ‘lease agreement for fishery right’ which was prohibited under the Korean Fisheries Act, and thus, the claimants were making a claim for illegal income.

In this regard, the Seosan Court considered that since the claimant had an office/address within the Fishing Village’s district, and the claimants’ ‘contract for exercising fishery rights’ was made through a resolution issued by all members of the Fishing Village, the claimants’ income could not be considered illegal and therefore allowed the claim.

In view of the fact that the claimants’ ‘contract for exercising of fishery right’ would still constitute a ‘lease agreement for fishery right’, prohibited under the Korean law, the 1992 Fund appealed the Court’s judgment to the Appeal Court. At the time this document was published, the Appeal Court had yet to schedule a hearing on the case.

2017

Judgment on the claim by two gulbi manufacturers In February 2017, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of two businesses that manufacture gulbi. The Court dismissed the claim of one of the businesses since the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove their loss. The Court admitted the loss of the other claimant. At the time this document was published, it was not yet known whether the claimants had appealed the judgment.

Judgment by four non-fishery claimants in Taean In February 2017, the Seosan Court delivered a judgment in respect of four non-fisheries claimants from Taean. The Seosan Court dismissed the claim from an accommodation business owner on the basis that he did not have proper license at the time of incident. The Court also dismissed the claim for the costs spent to support a festival at Mongsanpo which was allegedly held to improve its reputation on the basis that the costs were not causally linked to the incident. The Court further dismissed the claim from a retail shop owner on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the claimant was in business (retail shop) at the time of the incident.

The Seosan Court found that the fourth claimant, who ran a chauffeur service for tourists at the time of incident, had suffered some loss of revenue as a consequence of the incident. At the time this document was prepared, it was not known whether the claimants had chosen to appeal.

- 12 -

Proceedings in the Daejeon Appeal Court (Appeal Court)

2015

Judgment on the claims by 72 fisherfolk

In May 2015, the Appeal Court rendered a decision in respect of the Assessment Decision by the Seosan Court in January 2013 in respect of 39 fisherfolk who were operating without a license. In its judgment, the Court found that the claimants’ unlicensed fishing operations were seriously illegal, and the income originated from such actions could not be taken into account when assessing compensable damages. The Court therefore rejected the claim. Forty claimants appealed the judgment.

The appeal Court dismissed the appeal for 39 claims and allowed the claim for one of the fisherfolk, who could prove that the income he lost was in fact obtained legally.

Judgment on the claim by two handgatherers in Boryeong

In February 2015, the Seosan Court rendered two judgments on the claims by two handgatherers in Boryeong. The 1992 Fund had rejected the claims since the claimants had failed to protect their claims in court and had therefore become time-barred. In its judgment, the Seosan Court upheld the 1992 Fund’s rejection of the claim.

The claimants appealed the judgment. In November 2015, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. At the time this document was published, the Supreme Court had not issued a decision.

Judgment on the claims by six central and local authorities

In February 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claims by six central and local authorities in respect of transportation costs and other expenses incurred for volunteers’ clean-up activities, totalling KRW 2 757 572 430. In its judgment, awarding KRW 31 001 690, the Court upheld the 1992 Fund’s position in respect of the transportation costs and other expenses incurred for the volunteers’ clean-up activities. The Seosan Court held that:

(i) the transportation costs of the volunteers to the gathering points was not reasonable; and (ii) the expenses incurred after 1 January 2008 were not recoverable either, unless it was established that the clean-up activities involving those volunteers were technically reasonable.

Two of the claimants appealed the judgment. In November 2015, the Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal. This judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claim by a fish seller

In July 2014, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the case of one fish seller who alleged losses due to lack of supply of oysters as a consequence of the incident. The claim, totalling KRW 12 069 420, consisted of economic losses in the amount of KRW 10 972 200 plus damage assessment fees in the amount of KRW 1 097 220. The Limitation Court had rejected the claim as the claimant had failed to provide sufficient information in support of his claim. The Seosan Court argued that, as the claimant had submitted to the Court additional information on his link with suppliers who were found to have been affected by the contamination, it was likely that the claimant had suffered a loss. The Seosan Court did not uphold the decision of the Limitation Court and awarded to the claimant the full amount of losses. - 13 -

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment, since, although the claimant may have proved that he purchased part of his supply from businesses that were affected by the incident, the information he had provided in support of the claim did not show that he had suffered a loss or that the loss was the same amount as claimed.

The Appeal Court dismissed the 1992 Fund’s appeal since it found that the evidence submitted by the claimant in support of the claim was sufficient to prove a reduction in revenues and that, whilst in theory the claimant could have procured oysters from substitute suppliers, based on the supporting documents submitted, the Court found that that the claimant had been procuring oysters from his original suppliers for several years. Thus, it was unreasonable to expect that the claimant could have found a substitute supplier after the Hebei Spirit incident within a short period of time. The 1992 Fund did not appeal this judgment, which has since become final.

Judgment on the claims by three local authorities claims for costs incurred in relation to clean-up operations and economic losses

In July 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claims by three local and central government authorities for clean-up-related costs and economic losses for costs incurred to minimise losses in the area. The 1992 Fund had originally only partially accepted the claims, since the claimants had not submitted sufficient information in support of their claim. Further information was submitted during the legal proceedings and the 1992 Fund and its experts were able to review it. The 1992 Fund agreed with the judgment. However, the claimants appealed it.

In November 2015, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal. This judgment is now final.

2016

Judgment on a claim by one handgatherer

In January 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment in respect of a claim by one handgatherer. The Seosan Court had originally dismissed the claim on the grounds that the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that he was engaged in handgathering at the time of the incident. The claimant appealed and the Seosan Court’s decision was upheld. This judgment is now final.

Four judgments on the claims by four handgatherers

In May 2016, the Appeal Court rendered judgments in respect of claims by four handgatherers. The Seosan Court had originally dismissed the claims on the grounds that the claimants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that they were engaged in handgathering at the time of the incident. The claimants appealed and the Seosan Court’s decision was upheld. The claimants did not appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Two judgments on the claims by 10 handgatherers

In June 2016, the Appeal Court rendered two judgments in respect of claims by 10 handgatherers. The judgment was based on a previous reconciliation decision by the same court. However, some of the claimants’ representatives had objected to the reconciliation decision as these claimants could not be contacted, and the lawyers had no alternative but to object. In these circumstances, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment for the claims that could not be resolved through reconciliation and awarded them the same amount as in the reconciliation decision. The claimants did not further appeal the judgment, which has now become final. - 14 -

Judgment on the claims by 125 handgatherers

In June 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claim by 125 handgatherers. The Seosan Court had originally dismissed the claims on the grounds that the claimants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that they were engaged in handgathering at the time of the incident. The claimants appealed and the Seosan Court’s decision was upheld. The claimants did not appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Judgment on the claims by 246 individuals engaged in handgathering and fisheries sales

In June 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claims by 246 individuals engaged in handgathering and fisheries sales. The Seosan Court had originally dismissed the claims of all but one individual on the grounds that the claimants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that they were engaged in handgathering at the time of the incident. The claimants appealed the judgment. The 1992 Fund also appealed the judgment in respect of the one claimant who was awarded some losses since the claimant had not provided sufficient supporting information to prove that he had suffered a damage as a consequence of the incident.

The Appeal Court upheld the Seosan Court’s decision. The Appeal Court also dismissed the 1992 Fund’s appeal, stating that, although incomplete, the information provided by the claimant clearly indicated a decrease in the level of revenues during the year after the incident. The 1992 Fund did not appeal the judgment.

The claimants submitted an application for appeal, however, the Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ application since it failed to comply with the relevant formalities.

Judgment on the claims by 120 handgatherers

In June 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claims by 120 individuals engaged in handgathering activities in Seocheon County. The Seosan Court had originally dismissed the claims of all the claimants on the grounds that the claimants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that they were engaged in handgathering at the time of the incident. The claimants appealed and the Seosan Court’s decision was upheld. The claimants did not appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Judgment on the claim by 247 handgatherers and retail businesses

In June 2016, The Appeal Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal. The claimants did not further appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Judgment on a claim by one handgatherer

In July 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment in respect of a claim by one handgatherer. The Seosan Court had originally dismissed the claim on the grounds that the claimant failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that he was engaged in handgathering at the time of the incident. The claimant appealed and the Seosan Court’s decision was upheld. The claimant did not appeal the judgment, which is now final. - 15 -

Judgment on a claim by one individual engaged in cage aquaculture

In July 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment in respect of a claim by one individual engaged in cage aquaculture in Boryeong. In its judgment, the Court confirmed the amount previously awarded by the Court and agreed with the 1992 Fund’s assessment, whilst dismissing the remaining claim amount. The claimant did not further appeal the judgment, which has now become final.

Judgment on the claims by 605 various non-fisheries businesses in Taean

In October 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of 605 non-fishery claims in Taean. In its judgment, the Court upheld the 1992 Fund’s assessment and rejected the claims, since the claimants could not substantiate their alleged loss. The claimants appealed the judgment.

In its judgment in October 2016, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal since it found that the claimants had not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that they had suffered a loss.

Judgment on the claims by 478 various non-fisheries businesses and inland fishery businesses in Taean

In October 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of 478 non-fishery claims in Taean. In its judgment, the Court upheld the 1992 Fund’s assessment and rejected the claims, since the claimants could not substantiate their alleged loss. The claimants appealed the judgment.

In its judgment in October 2016, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal by the non-fishery claimants since it found that the claimants had not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that they had suffered a loss. The Court further dismissed the appeal by the inland fishery businesses since it found that the claimants did not hold a proper permit to operate their business and that therefore their claim was inadmissible. The claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. At the time this document was published, the Supreme Court had not yet scheduled a hearing.

Judgment on the claims by one fishing tackle seller in Boryeong

In October 2016, the Appeal Court upheld a previous judgment by the Seosan Court and rejected the claim by the owner of a fishing tackle sales business, since the claimant could not substantiate his alleged loss. The claimant appealed the judgment.

The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal since it found that the claimant had not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that they had suffered a loss. The claimant did not appeal the judgment and thus the Appeal Court’s judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claims by one fishing boat operator in Boryeong

In October 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment on the claim by one fishing boat operator in Boryeong. In its judgment, the Court upheld the decision by the Seosan Court and rejected the claim, since the claimants could not substantiate their alleged loss. The claimants appealed the judgment.

The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal since it found that the claimant had not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that they had suffered a loss. The claimants did not appeal the judgment and thus the Appeal Court’s judgment is final. - 16 -

Judgment in respect of claims by three claimants engaged in supermarket, wholesale fishing tackles, and accommodation businesses

In February 2016, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment in respect of one claim for loss of wholesale fishing tackle business, one claim for loss of supermarket business and one claim for loss of accommodation business in Boryeong. In its judgment, the Court dismissed the claims for loss of supermarket and accommodation business, whilst it admitted damages for loss of wholesale of fishing tackles business. The Court concluded that, considering that the number of anglers was reduced due to Hebei Spirit incident and the retailers of fishing tackles sustained loss of revenue, it followed that a loss of revenue for the wholesaler’s fishing tackle business was not out of question, and thus there was a causal relationship between the claim and the Hebei Spirit incident.

The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment arguing that the claim should be dismissed since the claimant catered to retailers of fishing tackles rather than tourists.

In October 2016, the Appeal Court accepted the 1992 Fund’s argument and rendered a judgment dismissing the claim. The claimant did not appeal the judgment. The Appeal Court’s judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claims by a number of handgatherers

In November 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment in respect of the claim by a number of individuals claiming to be handgatherers. The Seosan Court had originally dismissed the claims on the grounds that the claimants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that they were engaged in handgathering at the time of the incident. The claimants appealed and the Appeal Court upheld the Seosan Court’s decision. The claimants did not further appeal the judgment, which has now become final.

Claims by two Korean Government Agencies for VAT costs

In May 2015, the Seosan Court rendered two judgments on claims by the Korean Navy and the Korean Naval Operation Command related to costs incurred during the response to the spill.

In the judgments, the Court accepted the 1992 Fund’s assessment of both claims. However, the Court also held that the VAT paid to external contractors was recoverable.

The 1992 Fund objected to these judgments since, even though the claimants’ payment to the external contractors included VAT, the claimants, as departments of the Korean Government, were in fact the parties imposing the VAT, and therefore the payment of such VAT could not constitute a loss to the claimants. The 1992 Fund maintained the appeals to determine the position of the courts of the Republic of Korea on this issue.

In November 2016, the Court of Appeal reversed the Seosan Court’s judgment and held that VAT should not be included within the scope of the 1992 Fund’s or shipowner’s reimbursement to the Korean Government, since it found that a sum equivalent to the claimed VAT had already been repaid to the relevant tax office, and the evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove that they had actually suffered damages in connection with the payment of the VAT. The Appeal Court therefore accepted the 1992 Fund’s argument that VAT should not be paid to the government agencies.

The two agencies have appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judgment is expected later in the year. - 17 -

Judgment on the claim by a business providing advice to aquaculture farms

In December 2016, the Appeal Court issued a judgment on the claims by a company operating an aquaculture farm modernising business. In its judgment, the Court dismissed the claim since it found that the claimant had not suffered a loss as a consequence of the Hebei Spirit incident. The claimant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. At the time this document was published, the Supreme Court had not yet scheduled a hearing for this case.

Judgment on the claims by a number of fisheries retail businesses

In December 2016, the Appeal Court issued a judgment on the claims by a number of fisheries retail businesses and of fishing crew. In its judgment, the Appeal Court rejected the claim of all the claimants bar one since it found that they had suffered no losses. The Court however found, based on the information provided during the hearings, that one of the claimants had indeed suffered some losses. The 1992 Fund reviewed the information provided and agreed that the claim was admissible and the amount awarded, totalling KRW 462 288 (£328) to be reasonable. The claimant did not appeal the judgment, which is now final.

2017

Judgment by the Appeal Court with regard to 15 claims by crews and captains of fishing vessels and workers at a fishery-manufacturing factory

In January 2017, the Appeal Court issued a judgment in respect of the claims by crews and captains of fishing vessels and those who allegedly worked at fishery manufacturing factory and suffered a loss as a consequence of being dismissed after the Hebei Spirit incident. In its judgment, the Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the claimants actually worked on fishing vessels or at the fishery- manufacturing factory at the time of incident. Further, even if it were admitted that the claimants were actually employed at the time of Hebei Spirit incident, the Court still found that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the claimants sustained damages due to the incident. The claimant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, where the case is still pending.

Judgment on the claims by handgatherers

In February 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claims by a number of handgatherers in Seocheon, Buan-gun and Gunsan. The 1992 Fund had rejected the claims since the claimants had not proven to have been engaged in the handgathering activities at the time of the incident or that they had suffered a loss as a consequence of the contamination. In its judgment, the Court upheld the 1992 Fund’s view that the claimant had not proven to be engaged in handgathering activities or that they had suffered a loss as a consequence of the contamination. The claimants appealed the judgment.

In January 2017, the Appeal Court upheld the judgment by the Seosan Court and dismissed the claims since the claimants had not proven that they were carrying out fisheries activities at the time of the incident and that they had suffered a loss. The claimants did not further appeal the judgment, which is now final.

Judgment on the claim by the Korean Coast Guard for the costs of repairs to a helicopter

In July 2015, the Seosan Court had rendered a judgment in respect of the claim by the Korean Coast Guard with respect to the costs incurred in clean-up operations. In its judgment, the Court had accepted costs for the repair to a helicopter which had been damaged on landing after clean-up operations. The 1992 Fund appealed this part of the judgment since it considered that the accident on landing and the consequential repair costs were not caused by the contamination. - 18 -

In December 2016, the Appeal Court found that there was a causal relationship between the costs of repairing the helicopter and the Hebei Spirit incident, stating that it was sufficiently foreseeable that the helicopter might sustain such damage during landing.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court the 1992 Fund stated that the helicopter was damaged during landing at the Coast Guard’s landing facility as a result of some tree branches getting entangled with the helicopter’s blades due to a gust of wind created by the helicopter. In view of the circumstances in which the helicopter sustained the damage, the Fund considered that the damage was due to the condition of the landing facility and/or due to the pilot’s negligent landing and that therefore the damage to the helicopter should be considered as special damage in accordance with Korean law, which was not reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the Hebei Spirit incident.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is expected later in the year.

Judgment on the claim by the Republic of Korea for the costs of daily necessaries for responders

In July 2015 the Seosan Court accepted the 1992 Fund’s view that the costs incurred by the Korean Coast Guard to provide the participants in the clean-up activity with daily necessaries such as, inter alia, underwear, socks, hand cleaners, etc. would not be admissible for compensation.

In January 2017 the Appeal Court overturned the Seosan Court’s judgment and accepted these items as reasonable, though it only admitted 70% of their cost. The Appeal Court found that there was a link of causation between the costs incurred and the incident and that the expenditure of KRW 55 890 000 had been justified. However the Court decided to admit only 70% of the expenditure (i.e. KRW 39 123 000) since there was no evidence showing how the daily necessaries for responders had been spent.

The 1992 Fund appealed to the Supreme Court since these items are not used particularly for clean-up activities but in ordinary life, irrespective of whether an oil pollution incident has occurred or not and accordingly the costs for such daily items could not be attributed to the incident. In addition the Fund argued that it would be an unjustifiable double compensation since the villagers employed to carry out clean-up operations received wages (between KRW 80 000 and KRW 90 000 per day) which covered labour and the costs of daily necessaries required for clean-up activities.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is expected later in the year.

- 19 -

Proceedings in the Seoul Supreme Court

Judgment on the claim by a Compensation Committee

In October 2015, the Seosan Court rendered a judgment on the claim by a Compensation Committee. The claim was for costs incurred by the Committee in engaging the services of a loss adjuster to prepare the claims of the Committee’s members. In the judgment, the Court of Seosan had dismissed the claims on the basis that the Committee had not proven that it had incurred these costs. The claimant had appealed the judgment to the Appeal Court.

In May 2015, the Appeal Court dismissed the appeal. The claimant further appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court in June 2015. In October 2015, the Court refused permission to appeal. This judgment is now final.

Judgment on the claims by five employees of a resort business

In November 2015, the Seosan Court had rendered a judgment on the claim submitted by five employees who had been made redundant/had suffered a reduction in the wages as a result of the spill. In its judgment, the Court found that since the beach had been one of the most severely polluted areas and the number of tourists had dropped by 77% compared to the previous year, it was reasonable to expect that the employees could be laid off. The Court also found that since the business had no option but to lay off employees or reduce their wages due to serious financial difficulties it was difficult to conclude that there was no causal relationship between the damages suffered by the employees and the incident. The Court however decided to reduce the compensation awarded to the employees by 50% since they could have mitigated the damages by seeking other employment.

In its appeal, the 1992 Fund argued that there was no causal relationship between the claimants’ damages and the incident. Out of 90 non-fishery businesses in the area, the resort business in question was the only one that had laid off employees or reduced wages. In addition, the Fund argued that under Korean labour law, employers must meet strict requirements for reasonableness when they lay off their employees whereas in this case the resort business had laid off or reduced employees’ wages simply based on their own judgment or discretion.

In July 2016, the Appeal Court rendered a judgment rejecting the Fund’s appeal and upheld the Seosan Court’s judgment. The 1992 Fund appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court.

In November 2016, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment, dismissing the Fund’s appeal because it was not based on any of the grounds to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court as stipulated under Korean law in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Procedure for Trial by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accordingly decided to reject the appeal and to confirm the judgment by the Appeal Court upholding the Seosan Court’s judgment. The Seosan Court’s judgment therefore became final.

Two judgments on the claims by two Korean Government Agencies for VAT costs

In May 2015, the Seosan Court rendered two judgments on claims by the Korean Navy and the Korean Naval Operation Command related to costs incurred during the response to the spill.

The 1992 Fund assessed the claim by the Korean Navy at KRW 975.8 million (£655 000) and the claim by the Naval Operation Command at KRW 298.3 million (£200 000).

In the judgments, the Court accepted the 1992 Fund’s assessment of both claims. However, the Court also held that the VAT paid to external contractors in the amount of KRW 1 million (£671) and KRW 1.4 million (£940) respectively, was recoverable. - 20 -

In a judgment in April 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment which had held that the VAT should not be included in the 1992 Fund’s or shipowner’s reimbursement. As a consequence, the Appeal Court’s judgment has become final. The two agencies have appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judgment is expected later in 2017.

Judgments rendered by the Daejeon Court of Appeal

The Appeal Court has rendered judgments in respect of 5 555 claims. Since April 2016, 12 judgments were issued by the Court. Of these, 11 of these became final. The 1992 Fund appealed one judgment.

Judgments rendered by the Seoul Supreme Court

In June 2016, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment with respect to a claim by an individual engaged in aquaculture activities.

In February 2016, the Appeal Court upheld the Seosan Court’s judgment, stating that, even if the issue of whether the claimant’s aquaculture farms were polluted was set aside, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the claimant was engaged in aquaculture at the time of the incident and that he had sustained loss as a consequence of the spill. The claimant appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimant’s reasons for appeal did not include any of the reasons that entitled him to bring appeals to the Supreme Court under Korean law. This judgment is now final.