(b) The case affirming the lower court’s measure that recognized the maximum working age of a person who was engaged in the clothing processing business as until he/she reaches 60 years of age by taking into account the details of duties of the clothing processing business and the victim’s age

(b) The case affirming the court below's decision that recognized the maximum working age of a person engaged in the clothes processing business as until he reaches 60 years of age, considering the fact that the contents of the business of the clothes processing business do not mainly engage in ordinary physical labor, but it appears that physical labor is considerably required even if the business is not mainly engaged in ordinary physical labor, and the victim's remaining 53 years of age and average remaining 17.64 years of age at the time of the accident and it is difficult to see that he/she continues to engage in the clothes processing business until 65 years of age.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

Considering that a person engaged in daily labor can be operated until he/she reaches the age of 60 in light of the empirical rule is the consistent precedents of party members (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da11400, Mar. 27, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Da3888, Apr. 23, 1991). It can be said that the general tendency is that a mentally ill worker who has been able to perform physical labor may continue his/her work.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff left 53 years of age and 8 months of age at the time of the accident in this case, the average remaining life expectancy of Korean male from 17.64 years of age and 17.64 years of age, and the plaintiff's occupation, which had been engaged in the clothing processing business from March 1973, falls under the general manager of the career for at least 10 years of age (the occupational classification number 211) on the report on the fact-finding of wages by occupation published by the Ministry of Labor in 1989, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff can engage in the work until he reaches 60 years of age. Based on this, the plaintiff's actual import damage is calculated based on this.

In light of the records, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was unable to continue to engage in the clothing processing business that he operated any longer due to the above after disability (Evidence of the closure of evidence No. 12), it appears that the plaintiff's duty of the clothing processing business is considerably in need of the plaintiff's physical labor even if it is not the occupational category mainly engaged in general physical labor, and the plaintiff's remaining in May and average in May 17.64 at the time of the accident of this case and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's life remaining in 53 years old and in 65 years old and in the above clothing processing business continuously until 60 years old and 65 years old, it appears that the court below recognized the plaintiff's maximum working age as above in such purport, and therefore, even if it can be deemed that the maximum working age of a person whose main contents are mental labor, such as the manufacturer of fiber and clothes, can be viewed as 65 years old, as alleged in the theory of empirical rule, the above decision of the court below cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)