손해배상(자)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.
3. The time when the action has been brought.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part of the court of first instance as to the matters alleged by the Plaintiff at the trial, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was an individual taxi driver at the time of the accident, and the individual taxi business can be sufficiently performed by the aged, so the maximum working age for the Plaintiff ought to be recognized as up to 65 years. 2) The instant accident occurred in a situation where a person and a vehicle are able to dup up to the road due to the spoching of sporaf, thereby requiring a high level of duty of care to the driver, so the Plaintiff’
B. Determination 1) A person engaged in general labor in determining the operating period may be deemed to have worked until he/she reaches the age of 60 in light of the empirical rule. The maximum working age of a taxi driver shall also be until he/she reaches the age of 60 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da6665, Apr. 23, 1991; 91Da35243, Dec. 27, 1991); however, the maximum working age of a taxi driver may be recognized beyond 60 years only in extenuating circumstances where he/she is deemed to have exceeded the age of 60, taking into account specific circumstances, such as his/her age, occupation, career, and health condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da3167, Sept. 21, 199; see, e., data submitted by the Plaintiff alone, to find that the Plaintiff exceeded the maximum working age of an individual taxi driver in light of the empirical rule, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion within one year thereafter.