The legitimacy of determining that the maximum working age is up to 65 years of age without considering special circumstances (negative)

Even if a court may freely recognize the maximum working age in a specific case by taking into account the victim’s work experience, age, occupation, health condition, and other circumstances, if a healthy person intends to recognize the maximum working age above that, unlike the empirical rule that would normally reach the age of 55, in order to determine the maximum working age, the special circumstances that would serve as the basis for such determination are not examined and determined. Thus, the lower court did not reach such determination and did not err in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, that simply recognized the maximum working age by the age of 65 solely on the ground that the person

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu841 Delivered on November 23, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Shinsung Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na3044 delivered on February 25, 1983

Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 51,735,473 won, 2, 3, and 4 respectively as property damage, and the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 34,490,315 won and delay damages therefor, shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal concerning the dismissed portion of the above appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the deceased non-party who is the victim of the traffic accident of this case was male with 39 years of age and 5 months of age at the time of the accident of this case, and the average remaining life of 36 years at the time of the accident of this case. The deceased is in the representative director at the time of the accident of this case and in the advisory position of Korea Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and calculated the amount of 850,000 won for monthly salary and 350 percent of monthly salary from the above Green Medicine Co., Ltd. as an advisory fee for each of the above 1,00,000 won from the above Green Drug Co., Ltd., and on the premise that the above representative director or adviser falls under the category of mental labor, not physical labor, and thus, he can be engaged in the position until the age of 65,000,000 won.

2. However, even if a healthy person can freely recognize the maximum working age of the deceased in a specific case with his work experience, age, occupation, health condition and other various circumstances, even if the court below acknowledged the maximum working age of the deceased, it should be our empirical rule that the healthy person would normally reach 55 years of age, so in order to recognize the maximum working age differently from that of ordinary cases, the special circumstances that may serve as the basis for such determination should not be examined and determined (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu841, Nov. 23, 1982). Thus, even if the occupational category of the representative director or adviser working for the deceased differs from that of ordinary physical labor, the court below should have determined that there was an empirical rule that allows such maximum working age to be up to 65 years of age, and the remaining parts of the above special circumstances, i.e., the health condition of the deceased, health condition, health condition of the deceased, and the remaining parts of the grounds for appeal excluding the above maximum working age, are not sufficient to determine the maximum working age of the deceased person’s property damage.

3. Therefore, among the part against the defendant in the judgment below against the defendant, the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 51,735,473 won, 2, 3, and 4 respectively as property damage, and the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 34,490,315 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed. The part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's remaining appeals shall be dismissed. The appeal concerning the dismissed part of the above appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who reviewed the appeal to

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)