Whether the mining machinery business operator may request consolidation of the lost profits by means of daily wages in agricultural villages and the retirement allowances as a daily retirement machine (affirmative)

The damages caused by mining accidents by the failure to serve as a machine for the retirement age are the damages caused by the loss of labor capacity as a machine. Thus, the future profits assessed on the basis of the mechanical wage should be the amount of such damages. However, even if it is claimed on the basis of the amount of daily wages for rural communities in cases where ordinary labor is actually engaged in general labor due to accidents, this is also the damages caused by the retirement without being employed as a machine due to the above accidents. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that the claim for daily wages for rural communities and the retirement allowances for the lost workers caused by the retirement without being employed as a machine.

Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 230 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Hansung Mining Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na3396 delivered on May 19, 1982

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding the claim for damages on property shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the

The appeal on the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed above are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1.

The issue is that the plaintiff's work as the mining machinery hole of the defendant company and the plaintiff's work as the mining machinery hole of the defendant company from the date of retirement to the age of 55 is calculated on the basis of the daily wage for rural communities, not on the basis of the wage for mining machinery raised by the court below, based on the wage for the mine machinery, which was calculated on the basis of the daily wage for rural communities. However, according to the records, it is obvious that the plaintiff's legal representative stated at the fourth day for pleading of the court below that the plaintiff's work after retirement should be claimed as the daily wage for rural communities. Thus, the above decision of the court below is just upon the plaintiff's request, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground that the plaintiff lost 25 percent of his ability to work as a machine operator due to the instant accident while working in a mining center under the defendant company as a machine operator and became unable to work for the same occupation in the future, and that his work ability as a general worker for day in agricultural villages has been reduced by 25 percent, and that for 25 months from the date of the accident after the date of the accident to the date of retirement from the defendant company, the lost work profit based on the machine wage that was paid at the time of the accident, and for 119 months from the date of retirement to 55 years from the date of the accident, respectively, based on the amount equivalent to the work ability reduced due to the instant accident out of the daily wage in agricultural villages, and on the ground that the plaintiff would have lost retirement allowance under the collective agreement that he would have continued to work until the retirement age in the defendant mine and would have been paid during his retirement.

In other words, the retirement allowances for the plaintiff's assertion can only be made on the premise that the plaintiff would continue to work as a machine machine and have not been involved in the accident in this case. In this case, since the plaintiff calculated the lost benefits under the premise that the plaintiff would continue to work as a machine machine as at the time of the accident after his retirement from the accident, without the premise that the plaintiff would continue to work as a machine machine as at the time of the accident, the claim for the retirement allowances for the one-time room under the premise that the plaintiff would be retired

(2) In case where a person employed as a mining machine technician, such as the Plaintiff, was unable to serve as a mechanical machine any longer due to injury caused by a mining accident, and it is inevitable to retire from office, the damages incurred by such person who was unable to serve as a mechanical machine from the time of his retirement to the retirement age shall be deemed as damages to the loss of labor ability, and therefore future profits assessed on the basis of the wages of the mechanical machine shall be deemed as damages to the future profits.

However, on the other hand, the plaintiff was disqualified as a machine machine and could not be engaged in the daily work in agricultural villages with the remaining daily working ability, and thus, if the plaintiff is actually engaged in the agricultural work in agricultural villages, the damage was suffered due to the reduction of the amount of wages due to the reduction of his/her working ability. Thus, even if the plaintiff asserts the amount of damages based on the amount of daily work wage according to the reduced labor ability, without claiming the amount of damages based on the reduction of his/her working ability, this damage is nothing more than that of the loss suffered due to the plaintiff's inevitable retirement because the plaintiff was unable to continue to work as a machine due to the accident. Thus, it cannot be deemed that such claim is inconsistent with the claim for retirement pay that has been lost because the plaintiff could not continue to work as a machine machine operator until the retirement age.

In other words, a claim for lost income based on the above daily wage for rural communities is not based on the premise that the plaintiff voluntarily retires from the mining machine air and works in agricultural communities, but is based on the damages suffered due to an accident that is disqualified for the plaintiff to work until the retirement age for agricultural communities, and is inevitable because it is difficult to work as the machinery machine due to an accident, so it is different from the case of the daily retirement allowance for the damaged point caused by the accident that was unable to serve as the machinery machine, so there is no reason to view that the claim for lost income and the daily retirement allowance based on the above daily wage for rural communities should not be also claimed.

The Supreme Court Decision 80Da3211 Decided September 8, 1981 cited by the court below is related to a case in which a victim who has been employed in a mining part completed military service and demanded the lost profit under the premise that he will be engaged in daily work in rural communities regardless of the future accident, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an appropriate precedent in this case.

(3) Thus, the court below's determination that a claim for damages equivalent to retirement allowances under the premise that the plaintiff's claim for the lost profit up to the retirement age for the plaintiff's work for rural daily work is unjustifiable on the ground that it was premised on the plaintiff's work for rural daily work, cannot be viewed as an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to accurately grasp the nature of the lost profit, and it constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal as to bonuses, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to the claim for damages against the property of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal on the claim for consolation money is dismissed without any argument in the grounds of appeal, and the costs of appeal on the dismissal of the appeal

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)