20% of the standards for calculating the profit from the loss of mining records with a decrease in general rural labor capacity;

The amount calculated by deducting, from the time of the accident, 80% of the daily wages in general rural communities at the time of the accident until the time of the closing of argument (or the time close to the closing of argument) from the average wages of the mining records from the time of the accident to the time of 53 years of the retirement age of the mining records, 50% of the daily wages in general rural communities at the time of the accident and 80% of the daily wages in general at the time of the closing of argument until the time of the closing of argument

Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] The Korea Coal Corporation's Attorney Song-dae et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 75Da1712 delivered on March 5, 1976

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff Choi-hee, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and Dong-nam is dismissed.

The part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Of the costs of appeal, the part of the costs of appeal against the plaintiff Choi-hee-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and Dong-nam shall be borne by the defendant.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant Song-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court of first instance recognized the fact that the plaintiff 1 suffered injury due to the accident caused by the plaintiff 1's negligence in the course of performing the duties of the defendant's employee and the defect in the installation and preservation of the defendant's structure, as stated in its holding, and further, the accident in this case is caused by the competition between the plaintiff 1's negligence and the plaintiff 1's negligence, and it takes into account the plaintiff's negligence as stated in its holding. Thus, the process of the evidence cooking, which the court of first instance admitted by the court of first instance, is just in the course of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no error

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

The issue is that the court below did not consider the defendant's assertion that the retirement allowance from January 9, 1975 against the plaintiff 1 was 350,750 won Do 350,750 won, but only 266,570 won was deducted. However, according to the records, the defendant's statement of April 24 of the same year (Records No. 113) to the plaintiff from April 5, 1975 to January 9, 1975 that the amount of retirement allowance paid to the plaintiff from April 26, 1975 to the above plaintiff was 26,570 won. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below erred in finding the amount of retirement allowance paid upon the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff and the defendant as 266,570 won. Thus, it is without merit.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, since the plaintiff 1 was physically and physically healthy male who had been employed in a mine area near 1946.8.30 and lost 20% of the labor ability as a mining unit due to the accident at around 1974.74:0, and if the plaintiff 1 had no accident, he/she may work as a mining unit for up to 53 days, while he/she could have worked for 30 days a year as an ordinary worker until the age of 5,00,000, and then he/she would have no effect on the average wages at the time of 20 years old at the time of the accident at the time of the accident (the average wages at the time of the accident at the time of 30-1,040, which shall be calculated by deducting the average wages at the time of 30-1,040, which shall be calculated by the average wages at the time of the accident at the time of 30-1,074, respectively, which shall be deducted from the average wages at the age of 25.

Therefore, the Defendant’s final appeal against Plaintiff 1 on the same kind of interest is without merit. Accordingly, the part against Plaintiff 1 among the original judgment against the Defendant is dismissed, and the case against Plaintiff 1 is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the lower court, and the costs of appeal against Plaintiff 1 are assessed against the Defendant, who is the losing party, with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal against Plaintiff 1 on the same portion.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)