1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the third 14th 14th son of the judgment of the court of first instance.

In addition, the content set forth in the paragraph shall be added, on the fourth level, to the following 2-B:

In addition to adding the contents of the claim, it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the deceased entered the intersection first, and that the deceased, as a minor, was not able to be aware of the provision that the deceased, who is not responsible, has the preferential right to passage on the vehicle, so the deceased's negligence is within 20%.

However, at the time of the accident, the deceased appears to have sufficiently known the general precautions when crossing the road as of the age of 11 and 9 months. Even if the deceased did not have any negligence, the plaintiffs' assertion on this part cannot be accepted, since the negligence in protecting and supervising the plaintiff A and B, who are the duty to protect and supervise the deceased, can be considered.

B. The Plaintiffs asserts that the maximum working age of the deceased is until he reaches 63 years of age, considering the fact that the average life expectancy of the entire citizens increases, and that the average age of the agricultural management owner increases as 65.6 years.

A person who mainly engages in an agricultural or agricultural labor can be operated until he/she reaches the age of 60 in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da25852, Dec. 26, 1997): Provided, That where special circumstances exist that a person may be able to operate beyond 60 even after excluding the foregoing empirical rule, taking into account specific circumstances, such as age, occupation, career, and health condition, the maximum working age may be recognized beyond 60 years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da31667, Sept. 21, 199). However, solely based on the grounds asserted by the Plaintiffs, it is recognized that there are special circumstances that can exclude the foregoing empirical rule.