[2] The case holding that there are no special circumstances to recognize the maximum working age of a daily worker employed in an agricultural community who is 36 to 39 years old at the time of the accident as "before he reaches the age of 60, which is recognized in accordance with the empirical rule," and "before he ends the age of 63"

[2] The case holding that even if the victims had resided in the rural area at the time of the accident and had been engaged in actual rural labor even at the time of the accident, and the farmers with 60 years of age or older among the nation's farmers were 24% of the reality of Korean rural communities, in light of the fact that the victims' age at the time of the accident is relatively young for 36 years of age or 7 years of age or 39 years of age, it cannot be deemed that there are special circumstances to recognize the victims' age as "before they reach the age of 60" and "before the age of 63 years of age expires" in recognizing the maximum working age of the victims

The maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating the lost income of a person engaging in an agricultural or agricultural labor, shall be deemed to be until he/she reaches 60 years of age in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da47179, Feb. 14, 1995; 95Da35722, Nov. 7, 1995): Provided, That if special circumstances exist that a person is able to operate beyond 60 years of age in consideration of such specific circumstances as his/her age, occupation, career, and health condition, his/her maximum working age may be deemed to be over 60 years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da18573, Jun. 8, 1993; 93Da31917, Nov. 26, 1993; 95Da35729, Nov. 36, 197; 196Da36397, Nov. 196, 197

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the maximum working age of the plaintiffs 1 as being a male with the age of 36 and 7 months at the time of the accident, and as being a female with the age of 39 and 39 years at the time of the accident, the life expectancy of the plaintiff 2 was 31.81. The above plaintiffs resided in the rural area at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the Korean rural community with a farming household with the age of 60 and above 24% among the whole rural communities.

However, as decided by the court below, the above plaintiffs had been engaged in actual rural labor even at the time of the accident while living in the rural area at the time of the accident, and around December 1985 at the time of the accident. Even if it is the reality of Korean rural communities where the farmers aged 60 or older among the nation farmers occupy 24%, such reason alone is a relatively young person in light of the fact that the above plaintiffs' age at the time of the accident is 36 years and 7 years and 39 years and 39 years, etc., the above plaintiffs' maximum working age shall be excluded from the time of the accident, and there is no special circumstance to recognize the above plaintiffs' maximum working age until he reaches 60 years in light of the empirical rule.

Nevertheless, the court below's finding the above plaintiffs' maximum working age as soon as possible without further examining whether there are any special circumstances that may exclude the maximum working age recognized in light of the empirical rule as above does not ultimately lead to an erroneous determination of facts against the rules of evidence or a misunderstanding of legal principles as to the maximum working age. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the actual income shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)