beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the assertion in the court of first instance, and even if examining the evidence submitted in the court of first instance along with the evidence presented in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplementary determination under paragraph (2) below, as to the assertion emphasized by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff was able to engage in the pertinent business even after the date of the instant accident, the total amount of KRW 63,277,83 of the daily income for three years from the date of the accident should be recognized.
B. In setting the maximum working age that serves as the basis for calculating lost earnings, the court shall determine whether to set the maximum working age, considering the specific circumstances, such as the victim’s age, occupation, work experience, and health conditions, by examining the social and economic conditions such as average remaining life, economic level, employment conditions, etc., the number of workers by age, employment rate, labor participation rate, working conditions by occupation, and retirement age limit by occupation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da16867, Dec. 26, 1989; 96Da37091, Nov. 29, 1996; 96Da46491, Dec. 23, 197). In particular, with respect to a victim whose age exceeds the generally recognized maximum working age at the time of an accident, the court may recognize the maximum working age of the insurance company’s subjective recognition and surrounding circumstances, such as the victim’s person’s age, his/her health and working conditions, etc.
Supreme Court Decision 99Da31667 Decided September 21, 199, and November 13, 2014