Although labor force has been partially lost, it is possible to find employment in the previous work, whether a claim for damages equivalent to the retirement allowance of a person who voluntarily retired voluntarily (negative)

Even if a worker has lost part of the labor force by suffering from injury caused by the harmful act of another person, if he voluntarily retires even though it does not hinder the previous employment, he cannot claim a retirement allowance on the premise that he could have served in the future because he could not be seen as a tort of the perpetrator.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1582 Delivered on September 24, 1980, 80Da1499 Delivered on June 9, 1981

Attorney Song-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Coal Corporation (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3880 delivered on April 20, 1981

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding KRW 1,043,734 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In its reasoning, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff’s 18 percent loss of the labor force as a luminous part was lost, and otherwise, there is no evidence to deem the Plaintiff to have lost the luminous disqualification. The Plaintiff, after the instant accident, was unable to work as a luminous part, determined that the Plaintiff could not have voluntarily retired from the mine, but could have received retirement benefits by continuing to work until the age of 53, the retirement age of Defendant Corporation would have been able to receive the retirement benefits if the Plaintiff did not have the accident. Since the Plaintiff voluntarily retired from the instant accident after the instant accident, it was ordered to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff that the retirement allowance according to the rate of reduction of the labor force was reduced by 1,043,734 won.

2. The retirement allowance under long-term continuous service is paid to a person who has been continuously employed for a certain period of time according to a certain ratio. Thus, in case where a worker is unable to continue to engage in his/her duties until his/her retirement age is inevitable due to his/her failure to continue his/her service due to an injury to his/her duties, it shall be deemed damage and thus the perpetrator may claim compensation for such loss. However, even if a worker loses part of his/her labor force by suffering from an injury caused by another person's harmful act, his/her voluntary retirement shall not be deemed a tort if he/she voluntarily retires even though he/she did not hinder his/her previous employment. Thus, even if he/she voluntarily retires from his/her office, he/she cannot claim retirement allowance under the premise that he/she can continue to serve in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1582, Sep. 24, 1980), the original retirement allowance at the time when he/she voluntarily retires as above, shall be in violation of the legal principles on retirement allowance and the above precedents.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below ordering the payment of the retirement allowance of KRW 1,043,734 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)