A. Maximum working age of an architect

B. Whether it is reasonable to presume that the victim would be engaged in daily work as soon as he/she was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to a partial loss of labor ability.

A. Since the occupational category of an architect is different from that of ordinary physical labor, deeming that an architect is capable of engaging in ordinary physical labor until a certain age exceeding 55 years that is able to engage in ordinary physical labor should be reasonable in light of the age status of the architect, i.e., a special circumstance that can serve as the basis for the maximum working age of an architect, i.e., health condition, the specific content of the occupation, and the age status of the architect, without further examining and determining specifically the maximum working age of the architect, is unlawful.

B. Even if the victim was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to a partial loss of labor ability, such fact alone cannot be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage, and it can be presumed that his/her future income is the amount equivalent to the daily wage, only if there are special circumstances that the victim is difficult to engage in the occupation or occupation with more income than the urban daily wage, and is unlikely to engage in only the daily wage, it can be presumed that his/her future income is the amount equivalent to the daily wage.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu49 Decided September 24, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Meu595 Decided November 26, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na146 delivered on September 24, 1985

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff and the defendant regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff was able to obtain the above alleged facts with respect to the plaintiff's assertion that he was engaged in the defendant company as an architect until 65 years old after his retirement (5 years old and age 55), and that the plaintiff was able to obtain the above alleged facts, and did not believe the result of the plaintiff's self-examination, but was insufficient to recognize the above facts, and there was no other evidence to find the defendant's maximum working age as the plaintiff's architect by limiting the maximum working age as the defendant company to 55 years old and age 55 years old, and only accepted the net profit compensation that can be obtained by that time.

However, since the job category acquired by the Plaintiff is different from that of ordinary physical labor, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff as an architect is capable of engaging in ordinary physical labor until a certain year beyond 5 years old, which is the year when it can be engaged in ordinary physical labor, in light of the circumstances of the architect's age. Therefore, the court below rejected the Plaintiff's above assertion without any delay or violation of the rules of evidence, since the court below's decision against this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's health condition, that is, the details of the Plaintiff's occupation, and the age status of the architect, etc., which can be the basis for the year when the plaintiff's operation was operated.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff, a certified architect's qualification, entered the design department of the defendant company as the director on April 14, 1980, and from August 24, 1981, the construction department of the Rivia Construction Headquarters of the defendant company, while performing mainly designing duties, he was suffering from injury such as the king, the right 5 balance damage, and the Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam Dam py, etc. due to the traffic accident in this case, while performing his duties, the plaintiff was suffering from the injury of the 4th anniversary of the 1.2th left snow, and eventually, the 5th right side of the 1.5th day of the 5th day of the 1.0th day of the above 4th day of the 5th day of the 198th day of the above 2nd day of the 194th day of the above 10th day of the 1st day of the above 10th day of the work.

However, even if the plaintiff was unable to engage in the previous original work due to the after-sale legacy, it cannot be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to his future income only when there are special circumstances that it is difficult for the plaintiff to engage in a job or occupation with more income than his future urban daily wage and it is unlikely to engage in a daily work (see Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu449, Sep. 24, 1985; 85Meu5595, Nov. 26, 1985).

The judgment of the court below, without examining whether there are special circumstances that the plaintiff is unable to engage in an occupation or occupation which has more income than the daily wage for urban workers and that it would be impossible to engage in an urban work only, shall be determined as the amount equivalent to the daily wage for urban workers, and the actual profit shall be as stated in its judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the daily wage, incomplete deliberation, and violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

(3) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to property damage among the part against the plaintiff and the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)