(b) The daily retirement allowance in the case of voluntary retirement of the mine parts inside and outside the pit that has been allowed to be engaged only in mining damages due to a mine accident; and

B. In the above case, it is reasonable to view that the voluntary retirement allowance for the plaintiff who voluntarily retired is the daily retirement allowance, after deducting the retirement allowance to be received in the case of continuous service from the retirement allowance to the retirement allowance to the retirement age from the mine mine to the mine mine register.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the whole evidence, found that the plaintiff could no longer work as a luminous part due to the aftermath of the accident, such as physical disorder, memory disorder, pulmonal disorder, heart failure, heart failure, and scarcity, and lost 7 percent of the ability to work in agricultural villages, and then determined that the defendant corporation could early retire from office, and that the plaintiff lost 7 percent of the ability to work in agricultural villages from the date of the accident to 53 months from the date of the accident. In calculating the plaintiff's lost profit, the court below calculated the difference of 153,961 won (6,622 won for rural day, X25 days, 93/100) calculated the amount of monthly income which was 300,412 won which could have been earned by working as a luminous part each month from the date of the accident to the age of 53 months from the date of the accident, which would have been able to obtain based on the remaining labor ability.

However, according to the result of appraisal by Nonparty 1 employed by the lower court, the Plaintiff could have been employed in the mine area due to the injury of the instant accident and worked in the mine area, but the Plaintiff could have been employed in the mine area or in the daily work for rural communities. It can be recognized that approximately seven percent of its capacity has decreased. According to the testimony and arguments of Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 4 in the first instance court, the Plaintiff did not work in the Defendant company for more than two years and five months from May 5, 1980 after receiving treatment after the accident, but it could not be seen that the Plaintiff could not have been employed in the mine area due to the above accident and even if it could not continue to work in the mine area due to the accident, it could not be seen that the Plaintiff could have been employed in the outside rural area for less than nine percent of the total monthly income from the mine area for which the Plaintiff could have been found to have been found to have been unable to have worked in the rural area for more than nine percent of the total income from the outside rural area.

It is reasonable to discuss this issue.

With respect to Section 2:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the Plaintiff’s lost retirement allowance, the court below recognized the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance as the lost retirement allowance from the amount calculated by deducting the retirement allowance from the amount calculated by deducting 5% of the annual interest rate from the retirement allowance that the Plaintiff was able to obtain by working at the Defendant company as a light department on the premise that the Plaintiff is disqualified. However, even though the Plaintiff lost his eligibility as a light department due to the above accident, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s voluntary retirement as the retirement allowance from the amount calculated by deducting the retirement allowance that the Plaintiff would receive when he was in continuous service as a light department in the mine room (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2188, Jul. 7, 1981). Thus, the court below calculated the retirement allowance from the premise that the Plaintiff lost its retirement allowance from the retirement allowance to the retirement age as a light department, or there is no misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the retirement allowance from the retirement allowance room or unlawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is deemed to have seriously violated justice and equity, and the defendant is dissatisfied with the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of 16,903,717 won. Thus, the part of the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)