1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 66,039,420.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the part which is dismissed or added.” Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or added, is based on the “written evidence Nos. 5” written only by the statement of No. 5, No. 18 and No. 19 on the third and 3 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding results with regard to the Construction Workers’ Mutual Aid Association of this Court and the

The following matters shall be added after the third anniversary of the judgment of the first instance:

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the maximum working age is 65 years of age, the maximum working age, which serves as the basis of lost earnings, may be determined by the fact-finding court, in addition to the social and economic conditions, such as the average remaining life, economic level, employment conditions, etc. of the citizens of the Republic of Korea, by examining the overall circumstances, such as the number of workers by age, employment rate, labor participation rate, and employment conditions and retirement age limit by occupation, and by considering the specific circumstances, such as the relevant victimized party’s age, occupation, career, health condition, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5920, Mar. 9, 2001). As such, the ordinary maximum working age of ordinary workers is 60 years in light of the empirical rule, and there are no special circumstances to recognize the extension of the maximum working age in this case, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not acceptable.

The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as a daily-service construction worker, worked in the workplace subscribed to retirement pension at the time. If the instant accident did not occur, he/she continued to work until the retirement age and could receive retirement benefits at the time of the expiration of the maximum working age. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion was served in the 0,035,955 Won, Inc. and retired from office for more than one year.