Methods of Calculating lost income as a mining part;

Where the mining part is disqualified as a mining part due to an accident and the rural ordinary labor ability is lost by 15 percent, in principle, the calculation of the lost income shall be based on the average wage at the time of the accident and shall be calculated by deducting, from the average wage at the time of the accident, the amount calculated by adding 85 percent to the average wage at the time of the closing of the argument from the time of the accident to the time of the closing of the argument.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2697 Delivered on January 26, 1971

Kim Jong-Gyeong et al.

Korea Coal Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (78Gahap2975) in the first instance trial

1. Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant who ordered payment from August 26, 197 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-do with an annual rate of 19,337,902 won and the rate of 5% from August 26, 1977 to the full payment system is revoked and the plaintiff Kim Jong-chul's claim for the revocation portion is dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung and the appeal against the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un, the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, the plaintiff Kim Jong-cheon, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung are dismissed, respectively.

3. All the costs of appeal between the plaintiff Kim Jong-chul and the defendant are divided into three parts of the first and second trials, and one of the others is the plaintiff's, and one of the others is the plaintiff's own expenses, and the defendant's appeal against the defendant's defendant's Kim Jong-sung, Kim Jong-hwan, plaintiff Kim Jong-cheon, plaintiff Kim Jong-cheon, and plaintiff Kim Jong-sik is the

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Kim Jong-do 29,863,036 won, the amount of 200,000 won per annum from August 26, 197 to the full payment rate of 150,000 won per annum from August 26, 197 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae, and the amount of 50,000 won per annum from August 26, 197 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik-do.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is revoked and the plaintiffs' claim against the cancellation is dismissed.

The judgment of both the first and second courts that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) In addition to determining the Defendant’s assertion of comparative negligence as follows, the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s claim of comparative negligence is as stated in Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The defendant asserts that the accident occurred due to a luminous mistake that was caused by the plaintiff Kim Jong-kak-kak's booming of the early park, and thus, the defendant's liability for damages should be exempted or determined. Thus, the defendant's testimony of the court below's witness Lee Jin-kak-kak-kak's witness partially conforming thereto is hard to believe and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Further, in light of the whole purport of the testimony and oral argument of the court below's witness Park Jong-kak's testimony, in principle, in the light of the whole purport of the testimony and oral argument of the defendant's witness Park Jong-kak-kak's testimony, in a case where the plaintiff Kim Jong-k's vehicle loaded and transported materials, the security instructor takes the loaded materials to transport them together, and the accident can be acknowledged that the accident occurred by the plaintiff Kim Jong-k-kak's boom's instruction while carrying the materials, and there is no other evidence that the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's testimony was not attributable at the above.

2. Scope of damages.

(1) Property losses

가.(일실수입금), 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(호적등본), 갑 제2호증(간이생명표), 갑 제3호증의 1,2(단체협약서 표지 및 내용), 갑 제7호증(경력증명서)의 각 기재내용에 원심감정인 주정화의 신체감정결과 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 원고 김경연은 1945.10.1. 출생하여 사고당시 31세 10개월 남짓된 남자로서 같은 나이의 평균여명은 37년 남짓한 사실, 위 원고는 1975.10.9. 피고공사에 노무원인 광부로 입사하여 일하다가 위 사고로 상해를 입고 치료 및 요양을 하였으나 우하지근 위축, 요부운동 제한등의 후유증으로 광부로서의 노동력 약 20퍼센트를 상실하여 부적격자가된 결과 1978.11.10. 퇴직하였고 위 원고가 농촌일용노동에 종사할 경우에도 정상인에 비하여 약 15퍼센트의 노동력이 감퇴한 사실, 피고공사의 광부정년은 53세까지인 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증이 없으므로 위 원고는 특단의 사정이 없는 한 위 사고가 없었더라면 사공당시부터 광부의 정년인 53세까지는 광부로서의 수입을, 그 후부터 평균여명내의 가동연한까지는 농촌 일용노동자로서의 수입을 각 얻을 수 있었다고 할 것이며 한편, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제14호증의 4,5(평균임금산정내역 및 평균임금변경), 갑 제5호증의 1,2(농협조사월보 표지 및 내용), 갑 제6호증(사실증명원)의 각 기재내용을 종합하면 위 원고의 광부로서의 평균임금은 사고당시 금 4,938원 94전이었고 사고후로서 퇴직전인 1978.4.1.부터 금 6,881원 04전으로 변경되었으며, 농촌 일용노동 임금은 사고당시 금 2,420원이었고 사고후인 1978.4.경에는 금 2,910원이었던 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증이 없으며 당심 변론종결당시의 농촌 일용노동임금이 1978.4. 당시의 그것과 같음은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고 농촌 일용노동에 종사하는 사람의 경우 매월 25일씩의 비율로 55세가 끝날 때까지 가동할 수 있음은 경험칙상 인정되는 바, 위 원고의 광부로서의 일실수입산정은 원칙적으로 사고당시의 평균임금을 기초로 하여 사고당시부터 정년인 53세까지의 평균임금을 합산한 금액에서 85퍼센트의 가득가능한 농촌 일용노동 임금으로서 (i)사고당시부터 변론종결당시까지는 사고당시의 노임을, (ii) 변론종결 이후부터 정년까지는 변론종결당시의 노임을 각 합산한 금액을 공제하는 방법으로 계산하여야 하나 위 원고는 공제대상 농촌 일용노동임금중 위 (ii)부분에 관하여 당심 변론종결전인 1978.4.1.부터 당심 변론종결당시를 기준으로 한 노임의 공제를 구하므로 이에 따라 계산하면 위 원고는 사고당시부터 53세까지 253개월(월미만의 일수는 위 원고의 청구방법에 따라 버린다, 이하 같다) 동안은 매월 광부로서의 수입 금 150,226원(금 4,938원 94전x365/12, 원미만의 금액은 위 원고가 청구하는 바에 따라 버린다. 이하같다)에서 15퍼센트의 감퇴된 노동력을 가지고 농촌 일용노동에 종사하여 매월 얻을 수 있는 수입중 1978.3.30.까지의 7개월 동안은 사고당시의 노임을 기준으로 한 수입 금 51,425원(금 2,420원x25일x85/100)을 공제한 금 98,801원을, 그 후부터 53세까지 246개월 동안은 당심 변론종결당시의 노임을 기준으로 한 수입 금 61,837원(금 2,910원x25일x85/100)을 공제한 금 88,389원을 각 상실하게 되었다고 할 것이고, 53세부터 55세가 끝날 때까지 36개월 동안은 매월 농촌일용노동에 종사하여 얻을 수 있는 수입중 위 사고로인한 노동능력감퇴로 얻을 수 없게 된 수입 금 9,075원(금 2,420원x25일x15/100)을 상실하게 되었다고 할 것이며, 위 각 손해금의 현가를 사고당시를 기준으로 하여 호프만식 계산방법에따라 월 5/12푼의 비율에 의한 중간이자를 공제하고 계산하면 사고당시부터 53세까지의 금액은 금 15,319,901원 {(금 98,801원x6.8857)+금 88,389원 (172.5125-6.8857)}이 되고, 그 후부터 55세가 끝날 때까지의 금액은 금 153,353원 {금 9,075원 (189.4110-172,5125)}중 위 원고가 구하는 금 103,221원이 되어 합계 금 15,423,122원이 됨이 계산상 명백하다.

B. (New Retirement Pay) In full view of the purport of the argument in the above Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the defendant shall pay retirement allowances to the retired light workers according to the criteria set forth under the labor-management consultation, and the amount shall be calculated by multiplying the average wage by the number of payment days during the continuous service period. If there is a fraction of less than a year, it shall be the number of months, and if there is a fraction of less than a year, it shall be the number of months, and if there is a fraction of less than a year, it shall be one month, and it shall be recognized that the number of payment days during the continuous service period shall be the same as the entry in the attached Table, and there is no proof, and the above plaintiff shall be retired on November 10, 1978, the average wage of the above plaintiff shall be 6.81 won and 04 won at the time of retirement, the fact that the above plaintiff's average wage is 16.1 billion won and 53 years old at the time of retirement, regardless of the above special circumstances, it shall be paid for 16.14 2 months and 16.1.4 days

(C). (C) According to the result of the physical appraisal of the main purification of the appraiser of the court below, the above plaintiff shall undergo an operation to remove the steel products used in the pre-pativity of the pre-pativity of the pre-pativity in the future, and can be recognized that the above plaintiff requires approximately KRW 250,000 at its expense. Since there is no counter-proof, the above plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the above medical expenses of KRW 250,000 due to the above accident.

D. (Profit and Loss Set-off) Therefore, the above plaintiff suffered property damage of 20,409,512 won (15,423,122 won in daily actual income + 4,736,390 won in daily retirement allowance + 250,000 won in medical treatment expenses) due to the above accident. However, the above plaintiff is a person who was paid the temporary layoff benefits amounting to 1,271,610 won from the regional office of the labor office of the Korea Labor Agency after the above accident. Thus, the amount of property damage that the defendant is liable to compensate for to the above plaintiff is KRW 19,137,902.

(2) The plaintiffs' consolation money

According to the evidence evidence No. 1 of the above, it can be recognized that the above plaintiff Kim Jong-sung was the status of his parent, the plaintiff Kim Jong-hwan, the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung. Since the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung suffered injury due to the above accident, and then was recognized as easily in light of the empirical rule that he, his wife, and the parent suffered severe mental pain, the defendant is obligated to do so as to pay money. Furthermore, considering the above amount, the defendant is obligated to do so as to pay money. Furthermore, considering the following circumstances, the situation of the above accident recognized as above, the degree of injury suffered by the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, the status status of the plaintiffs, and all other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, the defendant should pay money of 200,000,000 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae, 100,000,000 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae, the plaintiff Kim Jong-soo, the plaintiff Kim Jong-soo, the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-soo.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff Kim Jong-J a 19.37.902 won and 100,000 won to the plaintiff Kim Jong-J, the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, the plaintiff Kim Jong-cheon, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung with 50,000 won per annum from August 26, 197 to the full payment rate of 50,000 won per annum. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the extent of its recognition, and the remaining part of the decision of the court below against which the defendant ordered the plaintiff Kim Jong-J to pay more than the above recognized amount is justified, and the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant which ruled against the defendant is revoked and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and since the defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung is dismissed as well as the defendant's appeal with Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Counseling (Presiding Judge)