[손해배상][공1982.2.1.(673),138]
Maximum working age of individual taxi drivers
An empirical rule that allows a healthy person to engage in a general physical labor is that it would normally be up to 55 years of age. Since a private taxi driver cannot be deemed to be a minor labor than general physical labor, when recognizing the maximum working age of a private taxi driver by the age of 65, the special circumstances on which he/she could serve as the basis thereof should be deliberated and determined. In particular, the deceased was in good condition, and the qualification requirements for a person subject to recommendation for a private taxi driver were 65 years of age, and there are several persons who are over 60 years of age while driving a private taxi, it cannot be deemed that the deceased was able to engage in a private taxi driver by the age of 65.
Article 763 of the Civil Act
Attorney Kim Yong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Attorney Lee Jae-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na167 delivered on February 24, 1981
Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part concerning the passive property damage of 24,582,292 won against the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, and the passive property damage of 16,38,195 won against the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung is reversed, and the part concerning this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the qualification requirements for the upper limit of age is below 65 years, among the private taxi drivers in the Jeonnam-do, the aged aged between 60 and 65 is 40 and 50, among the private taxi drivers in the Jeonnam-do, and the aged aged 68 is 2 or 3, and the victim non-party 1 who was driving a private taxi was healthy and has no physical defect in driving, and if the deceased did not die due to the accident, he shall be deemed to be able to drive a private taxi until the end of 65 years of age, and shall calculate the passive property loss due to the loss of lost profit of the deceased.
However, even if the court can recognize the term of work freely by taking into account the person's experience, age, occupation, health condition and other various circumstances in case of individual circumstances, it is our rule of experience that a healthy person can normally work in physical labor by the age of 55, and therefore, it should be considered that there should be a special circumstance that can serve as the basis for recognizing the term of work in general cases differently from the above general cases.
In this case, the private taxi driver cannot be deemed minor work than ordinary physical labor in light of our experience. Therefore, it is insufficient to consider the above deceased as the ground that he can drive a private taxi beyond 55 years and until 10 years have passed since he was working until the age limit of 65 of individual taxi driver, and the fact that the individual taxi driver was working beyond 60 years in the private taxi driver's age limit does not make it impossible for the deceased to do so as to have a private taxi driver's age limit of 5 years or older, and that the above private taxi driver's age limit of 65 years or older cannot be viewed as a private taxi driver's age limit of 5 years or older, and therefore, it is difficult to consider that the above private taxi driver's age limit of 65 years or more is a ground to recognize that the private taxi driver's age limit of 65 years or more would violate the above private taxi driver's age limit of 65 years or more without examining the facts that the deceased's personal taxi driver's age limit of 65 years or more.
(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts: the point of accident in this case is about 30 degrees the two lanes, where the passage of the vehicle is frequent, and the speed of the vehicle is 54 kilometers, which is 54 kilometers at night at the time of the accident at night, and it was difficult to very roughly cut off the vehicle in length, but the vehicle's vehicle is operated under speed of 65 kilometers at the time of the accident, and the driver's taxi in this case, which operated the vehicle under the speed of the accident and operated the vehicle under the speed of the 65 kilometers at the time of the accident, is deep above the median line, and the driver's taxi in this case, which operated the vehicle under the normal operation of the vehicle without towing it, is caused by the unilateral negligence of the number of the vehicle operated by the defendant and it cannot be deemed that the negligence of the above deceased is concurrent. Accordingly, according to the records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence, such as the rules
(3) Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the other grounds of appeal as to the part of passive property damages, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to the amount of 24,582,292 won for passive property damage against the plaintiff Kim Jong-young and 16,38,195 won for passive property damage against the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the court below, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)