손해배상(자)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to the plaintiff's assertion is identical to the statement of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the part concerning additional determination as to the plaintiff's assertion as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as
The Plaintiff at the time of the instant assertion regarding additional determination is a person who has been operating a restaurant for at least 15 years, even though he/she was 57 years of age and 8 months of age, due to a healthy body, and the average number of persons increases. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s maximum working age should be recognized as 65 years or at least 63 years of age.
The maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating lost earnings, may be determined by examining the overall circumstances, such as the average remaining life, economic level, and social and economic conditions such as employment conditions, and the population of workers by age, employment rate or labor participation rate, working conditions and retirement age limit by occupation, etc., and derive the presumed maximum working age in light of the empirical rule, or by considering specific circumstances, such as the age, occupation, career, and health conditions of the victimized party.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da37091, Nov. 29, 1996). Meanwhile, the maximum working age, which is the basis for calculating lost income of a person who mainly engages in labor equivalent to urban daily wage, shall be deemed to generally be until he/she reaches 60 years of age. Provided, That in extenuating circumstances, such as his/her age, occupation, career, and health condition, may be excluded from the foregoing empirical rule and may be over 60 years of age if he/she is able to operate beyond 60 years of age, considering specific circumstances, such as the person’s age, occupation, career,
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da665, Apr. 23, 1991; 96Da25852, Dec. 26, 1997). Data submitted by the Plaintiff to determine whether a restaurant operating a general work mainly goes beyond the above maximum working age recognized in light of the empirical rule, and thus, the Plaintiff’s maximum working age can be acknowledged to be between the age of 65 and 63.