Whether a person who, due to a mining accident, has lost the eligibility as a mining father and a part of the rural labor ability, claims for the benefit of negligence as a worker in the rural community and claims compensation for damages due to a retirement allowance as a mining father (negative)

If, due to the aftermath of injury caused by a mining accident, the Plaintiff could not be employed as a mining unit, and if, in the event of partial loss of the rural labor ability, the Plaintiff claims for lost earnings based on the labor ability lost from the age 23 to the age 53, the Plaintiff would continue to serve as a mining unit unless the accident was done, and it would not be possible to seek a separate damages equivalent to retirement allowances as a mining unit on the ground that it would be impossible to continue to serve as a mining unit until the retirement age. This is because considerable damages can only be claimed under the premise that the Plaintiff would have worked as a mining unit unless the accident was done. If the Plaintiff voluntarily retired from office and would have worked as a non-mining unit regardless of the accident, the amount equivalent to retirement allowances as a mining unit premised on the retirement age cannot be claimed as compensation for damages.

Articles 763 and 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1499 Decided June 9, 1981 80Da2188 Decided July 7, 1981

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Cho Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2853 Decided November 27, 1980

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the property damage (the loss of lost profit and retirement allowance) shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

3. The appeal under paragraph (2) above is to be made at each appellant's own expense.

(1) Judgment on the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

With respect to Section 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the claim for medical expenses, such as the plaintiff's medical expenses for future hospitalization, surgery expenses, and anesthesia, which correspond to the necessity of the operation, by Nonparty 1's physical appraisal result, in light of each physical appraisal result of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the court below's decision is acceptable and there is no violation of the logical rule or the empirical rule against the cooking of the evidence. The court below's decision is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the logical rule or the empirical rule against the cooking of the evidence. The court of final appeal can only determine the legality of the grounds of appeal, but can not directly examine and determine the needs

Part II, 3

According to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff's attorney is dissatisfied with the part against the plaintiff's future medical expenses among the original judgment based on the appeal in this case (see the application for change of the purport of the appeal). Therefore, the non-appealed temporary disability compensation benefits and comparative negligence offset in the original judgment cannot be considered as the grounds for appeal. Therefore, it is not reasonable to judge this point

(2) Determination on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney

With respect to Section 1:

If the reasoning of the judgment below is examined in light of the records, the fact-finding in the judgment of the court below as to the reasons why the plaintiff was faced with the abortion in the course of performing carbon operations is just, and the decision of the court below that the extent of the plaintiff's negligence in relation to the accident in this case is 20 percent in determining the scope of the defendant's liability for damages under such factual relations is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding or any error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles

As to the ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the plaintiff's 20 years old and 50 won per day as average wage of 4,560 won as of the plaintiff's 200 years old and 30 years old and 40 won per day. However, even if the plaintiff was engaged in 26 percent of his ability to work in agricultural villages, 2,507 won per day at the time of the accident, and 6,622 won per day at the time of the conclusion of the argument in this case, and 60 days per day, rural labor at 5 years old and 40 days per day after the above 60 days old and 60 days per day after the above accident, and determined that the plaintiff's 20 days old and 5 days old were deducted from 20 years old and 5 days old and 5 days old, 30 days old and 47 days old and deducted from 20 days old and 47 days old and 57 days old and lost from 20 days old.

The court below should have determined the amount of losses as retirement allowances on the premise that the plaintiff's claim for losses was no longer available until his retirement age due to the cause that the plaintiff, who is the injured party due to the tort while working in the mining area at the time of the accident, was no longer capable of working in the mining area due to the aftermath of injury. If the plaintiff's claim for losses was calculated as retirement allowances on the premise that he would continue to work in the mining area without the accident, and if the victim's own voluntary retirement and would work in an occupation other than the mining area without any relationship with the accident, the amount of retirement allowances as a mining area under the premise that the plaintiff's retirement age would not be claimed as damages due to the tort. The court below should have determined the amount of losses from the 5th anniversary of the plaintiff's retirement age to the 5th age of 55, on the premise that the plaintiff's claim for losses from the 5th age of 23 to the 55th age of her retirement age can not be viewed as having been based on the premise that the plaintiff's retirement allowance was no longer available.

(3) Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal on the loss of profit and loss of retirement allowance of the plaintiff is reasonable, this part of the appeal is reversed and remanded to Seoul High Court which is the court below. The plaintiff's appeal and the remaining appeal by the defendant are without merit. Therefore, the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)