An appellate hearing to contest the legality of a 28.1 billion won penalty surcharge imposed on Young Poong's Seokpo Smelter over cadmium contamination of the Nakdong River will be held on the 22nd. With a final acquittal in the criminal case after the court did not recognize a causal link between smelter operations and the cadmium release, the key issue in the administrative case is whether the legal basis for imposing the penalty surcharge can still stand.
The Administrative Division 3 of the Seoul High Court will hold an additional appellate hearing at 4:20 p.m. in Courtroom 303 of the Seoul High Court in the lawsuit filed by Young Poong seeking to overturn the penalty surcharge imposed by the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment (formerly the Environment Ministry).
Earlier, in the first trial in Feb. last year, the court rejected Young Poong's claim, finding that cadmium was discharged into the Nakdong River during the Seokpo Smelter's operations. The ministry said cadmium was released from the Seokpo Smelter into the Nakdong River and elsewhere from Apr. 2019 to Apr. 2021, and in Nov. 2021 imposed a 28.1 billion won penalty surcharge on Young Poong.
However, the criminal court later reached a different conclusion. In Nov. 2024, in the first trial for former and current Young Poong executives and employees indicted in the case, the court said it was difficult to see that they intentionally allowed the cadmium release and acquitted them. The appellate court also maintained the acquittal, saying there was insufficient direct evidence that contaminated water was discharged due to Seokpo Smelter operations, and the ruling became final when prosecutors abandoned their appeal.
Ultimately, the issue in this trial is whether, despite the final acquittal in the criminal case, the administrative court can recognize that Seokpo Smelter operations were more likely the cause of the cadmium release.
Typically, criminal cases require proof of the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, in administrative cases, a penalty surcharge may be imposed if, considering various circumstances, it is judged that the likelihood the facts are established is superior. The legal community views the issue in this case as how to apply these differing standards of proof.
At the hearing, both sides are expected to deliver oral arguments using presentation materials for 30 minutes each. Attorneys for both sides completed submission of documentary evidence the previous day. The bench earlier reportedly asked for a clear explanation of the differences between evidence admitted or excluded in the criminal and administrative cases and the legal implications.
The ministry is expected to emphasize the position that cadmium moved into groundwater through double retaining walls, drainage channels, retention basins, and factory floors during the smelter's operations and then flowed into the river.
Young Poong, on the other hand, is expected to argue that the direct cause of cadmium contamination is not current smelter operations but soil pollution formed when mineral tailings and other materials were buried during past site development.
The bench is reportedly planning to consider whether to call witnesses after reviewing the criminal records and both sides' explanations.