[손해배상(산)][공1990.6.1.(873),1049]
Maximum working age of a day-to-day hole
Presumption based on the empirical rule that the maximum working age of living activities whose main contents are general physical labor or physical labor cannot no longer be maintained, and rather, deeming that the maximum working age of daily life is more than 55 years would normally be able to be more than 55 years would accord with the empirical rule. As such, recognizing that the maximum working age of daily-use adjacent work is until the expiration of 55 years 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) (Gong1990,513) Decided January 23, 1990 (Gong1990,513) Decision 88Meu2435 Decided February 13, 1990 (Gong1990,624) (Gong1990,624) Decided March 13, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 89Meu15472 Decided March 13, 1999 (Gong190,879), 89Meu22975 (Gong190,879), 89Meu252577 (Gong190,884) (Gong190,884)
[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Jae-nam, Counsel for defendant-appellant
Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 88Na37814 delivered on July 20, 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.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff suffered the accident of this case due to the plaintiff's mistake that caused the occurrence of the accident of this case and the extension of damages caused by the plaintiff's mistake that caused the accident before the accident of this case, because the plaintiff had been suffering from the previous disease of this case due to the lusium prior to the accident of this case, refused doctor's hospitalization and took a lusium control only, and continued lusium management. The plaintiff's mistake and existing disease caused the occurrence of this accident and the extension of damages caused by the accident of this case. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there are no errors
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when recognizing the maximum working age of the plaintiff injured due to an accident in the original market, the court below determined that the plaintiff can work as a day-to-day contest until he ends the age of 55 is clear in light of the empirical rule.
However, the presumption based on the empirical rule that the maximum working age of a living activity whose main contents are general physical labor or physical labor cannot be maintained any longer, and rather, it would be reasonable to view that the maximum working age of a living activity is more than 55 years and may normally be operated beyond 55 years in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1687, Dec. 26, 1989). Therefore, the above decision of the court below is erroneous in matters of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by violating the rules of evidence when recognizing the maximum working age of the plaintiff
3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding property damage shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)