logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1990. 2. 13. 선고 88다카22435 판결
[손해배상(자)][공1990.4.1.(869),624]
Main Issues

Maximum working age of ordinary physical workers;

Summary of Judgment

In light of the changes in the overall circumstances following the rapid improvement of our society, economic structure and living conditions, it is difficult to presume that the maximum working age of living activities, the main contents of which are general physical labor or physical labor, is 55 years old, based on the empirical rule, and rather, it would be reasonable in light of the empirical rule to deem that the maximum working age of living activities, the main contents of which are general physical labor or physical labor is 55 years old.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu16867 Decided December 26, 1989

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant

original decision

Gwangju High Court Decision 87Na731 delivered on July 1, 1988

Notes

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Due to this reason

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below in this case, it is reasonable and acceptable that the court below calculated the amount of damages by considering the comparative negligence ratio of the deceased non-party 1 as 10%, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to comparative negligence. Therefore, the argument on this point is groundless

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that, while living in a rural area and serving as a local public official in a Myeon office with the retirement age of 55 years old, a person engaged in ordinary rural daily work may operate until the completion of 55 years of age in calculating expected import damage after the retirement of the deceased, who died of the instant accident, is obviously in light of the empirical rule, and thus, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the maximum working age of ordinary rural daily work of the deceased is recognized as up to the expiration of 55 years of age, the deceased may serve as a general rural daily work until the end of 60

However, in light of the fact that the average life expectancy of the people has been remarkably increased due to the rapid improvement and development of our society, economic structure and living conditions in Korea, the retirement age of the public officials in technical service whose main duties are physical labor was extended under the National Pension Act was also extended under the law, and the age of the elderly who lost the ability to work under the National Pension Act was also defined as 60 years in principle, it is difficult to see the presumption based on the empirical rule that the maximum working age of the ordinary physical labor or physical labor is 55 years old, and in general, it is reasonable to see that the maximum working age of the living activities whose main contents are physical labor is 55 years old is 55 years old and can be operated beyond 55 years in light of the empirical rule that the fact-finding court will examine and determine the overall circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1687, Dec. 26, 1989). Accordingly, the court below's other opinion rejected the Plaintiffs' assertion that it constitutes a ground for reversal of the above provision of the Act 200 days general labor until the deceased's age.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-광주고등법원 1988.7.1.선고 87나731
본문참조조문