2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the judgment of the court of first instance, which held on this issue, was unlawful even though the Plaintiff asserted that “A was unable to receive retirement allowances for the continuous service period from the time of retirement to the time of retirement, which would have been served in the stock company’s loss of labor ability, if it had not been committed by the Defendant.” The Defendant asserted that “I would have suffered losses from retirement allowances corresponding to the Plaintiff A’s loss of labor ability, by early retirement due to the Defendant’s tort,” and that “I would have suffered losses from retirement allowances corresponding to

In light of the following facts: (a) the victim, who lost part of his/her ability to work due to the aftermath of injury caused by a tort, could have retired when he/she reaches the retirement age due to continuous service in the workplace where he/she had worked at the time of the tort if he/she had not committed the tort; (b) the injury caused by a tort, which was inevitable due to aftermath of injury caused by the tort, shall not be deemed to have been paid the total amount of retirement benefits that could have been received by the victim due to the impossibility of receiving the proper retirement benefits due to the fact that he/she could not receive the payment of the retirement allowances that could have been received by the victim if he/she had not committed the tort; and (c) shall be deemed to have been unable to receive only the amount equivalent to the degree of loss of his/her ability to work among the retirement allowances that the victim could have received (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da1370, Apr. 23, 191).