The case holding that the maximum working age of an agricultural worker aged 54 at the time of an accident shall be until he/she reaches the age of 63.

The case affirming the judgment below that recognized the maximum working age as an agricultural employee by the date on which he reaches 63 years of age, in calculating the maximum working age of a person who has resided in a rural area with the age of 54 years of age in the time of the accident and cultivated a dry field due to self farming at the time of the accident, taking into account various circumstances, such as the trend of aging rural labor ability and the farming type at the time

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Da16867 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 356) Supreme Court Decision 90Da1172 Decided April 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1163), Supreme Court Decision 92Da18573 Decided June 8, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1991), Supreme Court Decision 93Da31917 Decided November 26, 1993 (Gong194, 197), Supreme Court Decision 96Da37091 Decided November 29, 196 (Gong197, 170)

Kim-ok (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Dongyang Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-dong Law Office, Attorney Kang Han-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na26502 delivered on October 17, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below determined that the plaintiff's maximum working age as an agricultural employee is 5.8 years old, 60 years old, 50 years old, 40% old, etc., and the plaintiff resided in rural communities until 54 years old at the time of the accident in this case, and cultivated farming houses with 3,00 years old and dry field 40 years old and dry field 400 years old, and as a plastic house with 63 years old, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's maximum working age as an agricultural employee is 53 years old, in light of the legal principles on the evidence and maximum working age (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Da1687, Dec. 26, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 193Da19639, Dec. 16, 197; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da196196, Mar. 16, 197).

2. On the second ground for appeal

The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a claim for damages due to tort falls under the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. According to the records, the judgment of the court below that deemed the victim's fault as 80% is acceptable. Thus, there is no error of law as discussed in the judgment below. There is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)