The drying up of aqueducts used by the plaintiffs caused great negative effects on their life and production. The plaintiffs therefore claimed that the defendants mining activities destroyed the coal seam which resulted in the destruction of surface and ground water, and water resources losses. The 1st instance court found that environmental infringement includes destruction of water resources to which the principle of inversion of burden of proof applies. Since the defendants failed to prove that their mining activities were irrelevant to water resources destruction, they had to bear the detrimental consequences of incapability of providing proof. Thus the 1st instance court held that the mining activities of defendants constituted environmental infringement to the plaintiffs, and shall be liable for compensation jointly. The defendants appealed. The 2nd instance court upheld the original verdict and dismissed the appeal.