[손해배상(기)][공1990.5.1.(871),875]
Maximum working age of workers engaged in the restaurant or the excursion place of business
Presumption of the maximum working age of living activities whose main contents are general physical labor or general physical labor is 55 years of age is that it is difficult to maintain such presumption and that it can be operated beyond 55 years of age. As such, it would be reasonable to view that the maximum working age of workers engaged in a restaurant or a flexible place of business whose main contents are general physical labor is 55 years of age would be in violation of the rules of evidence.
Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu16867 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 356) (Gong1990, 356) 89Meu7723 Decided January 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 513) (Gong190, 624) Decided February 13, 1990
Park Young-ro Attorney Cho Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant
Gangwon Industrial Company
Seoul High Court Decision 89Na6633 delivered on May 15, 1989
The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff are dismissed, and all costs of appeal by the dismissal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
As to consolation money:
In light of the overall circumstances cited by the court below, the court below did not err in the determination of consolation money of the plaintiff 5,00,000 won, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of consolation money, and the circumstances that the court below considered include the reasons for the theory. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of consolation money, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff suffered from pulmonary diseases, and the plaintiff suffered from pulmonary diseases, and it is hard for the plaintiff to recover from pulmonary disease rather than other people because pulmonary methods are lost, and even if the plaintiff was a director of the defendant company's net factory around the defendant company, the above factory was under normal operation, and thus it cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's negligence.
Therefore, this paper is without merit.
With respect to property damage:
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the lost profit of the plaintiff, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff was able to work until the completion of 55 years of age on the premise that the plaintiff was able to work as an employee of the restaurant or the amusement place of business in full view of the evidence and the experience rules cited by him.
However, it is reasonable to view that the presumption of maximum working age of living activities whose main contents are general physical labor or general physical labor is 55 years old or older is difficult to maintain any longer, and that it can be operated beyond 55 years old or older is reasonable by empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1687, Dec. 26, 1989). Therefore, the court below held that the Plaintiff’s living operation year of living activities whose main contents are general physical labor is 55 years old or older is 55 years old or older is erroneous in the law of evidence, and this point is affected by the judgment, which points out this issue.
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff as to property damage is reversed, and remanded this part of the case to the court below, and dismissed the remaining appeal. The costs of appeal against the dismissal of appeal to the court below are assessed against the plaintiff's own expense
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)