Maximum working age of powder capacity

Even if the day of the powder worker’s main contents is physical labor, it is difficult to regard such physical labor as the maximum working age until he/she attains the age of 55 according to the empirical rule. Rather, it is reasonable to view that the duty, the main contents of which are general physical labor or physical labor, may be operated beyond the completion period of 55 years in light of the empirical rule.

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu16867 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 356) (Gong1990, 356) 89Meu7723 Decided January 23, 1990 (Gong1990, 513) (Gong190, 624) Decided February 13, 1990

Egyptian et al.

Seoul Central District Court

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na7186 delivered on August 18, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the empirical rule recognizes that the Plaintiffs, who worked in the stone collection site, can be operated until the completion of 55 years of age as those engaged in ordinary physical labor, with respect to the maximum working age of non-party 1, who was employed in non-party 1.

However, even if the day of the powder worker’s main contents is physical labor, it is difficult to regard such physical labor as the maximum working age until he/she attains the age of 55 in light of the empirical rule. Rather, it is reasonable to view that the duty, the main contents of which are general physical labor or physical labor, may be operated beyond the completion period of 5 years in light of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1687, Dec. 26, 198).

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the empirical rule as to maximum working age and affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)