[1] Standard for recognizing maximum working age

[2] The case holding that the maximum working age of agricultural workers who were 57 years of age and 10 years of age at the time of the accident shall be until the age of 63

[1] The maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating lost earnings, may be determined by a fact-finding court based on examining all the circumstances, such as the population of workers by age, employment rate or labor participation rate, working conditions by occupation, and retirement age limit, other than average remaining life, economic level, and economic conditions such as employment conditions, etc., and derive the presumed maximum working age in light of the empirical rule, or by taking account of specific circumstances, such as the age, occupation, career, and health conditions

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below on the ground that the maximum working age of a person who cultivated a rice field at the time of the accident while living in a rural area with a maturity of 2.66 years and a maturity of 57 years and over October at the time of the accident shall be until he reaches 63 years of age.

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da31917 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 197) / [1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu16867 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 356) Supreme Court Decision 92Da10135 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong192, 2533) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da18573 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1991)

Man-ton et al.

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-dong Law Office, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na21293 delivered on July 18, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating lost earnings, may be determined by a fact-finding court based on the overall circumstances, such as the average remaining life, economic level, and the social and economic conditions such as employment conditions, and the population of workers by age, employment rate, labor participation rate, occupational conditions, and retirement age limit by occupation, etc., and derive the presumed maximum working age in light of the empirical rule, or by taking account of specific circumstances, such as the age, occupation, career, and health conditions of the victimized party (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da31917, Nov. 26, 1993).

The court below held that it is reasonable to view that, at the time of the accident of this case, the non-party deceased's low-income bracket was the age of 57 years and 22.66 years, living in a rural area, and cultivated the rice field owned by her husband at the time of the accident in the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do at the time of the accident. Meanwhile, among the farmers in Gyeonggi-do as of 1990, the farmers in the area of Gyeonggi-do at 26.9% did not reach 26.9%, and the above 25.6% did not apply to the above Yan-gun, and it was confirmed that the agricultural managers over 60% of the above 60% of the total amount of working age of the above deceased's agricultural workers as 63 years of age in light of the aging trend of labor force in the Agricultural Community Development Administration in 194, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, and there is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)