beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against Plaintiff A is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Plaintiff .
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal against Plaintiff A
A. Based on its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff A would have been liable to compensate the said Plaintiff for the entire income that the Plaintiff would have been able to obtain as a technician of the Korea Coal Corporation from June 2, 1985, the date following the retirement date, until March 31, 2008, which was the end of the quarter when he would be 59 years old, the retirement age of the employees of the Korea Coal Corporation, if he had not committed the Defendant’s tort; and (b) therefore, (c) determined that the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the entire income that the Plaintiff would have been able to obtain as a technician of the Korea Coal Corporation from June 2, 195 to the retirement age.
B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
The judgment below
In light of the reasoning and the record, even though the Defendant’s tort did not lose the ability to work due to social restrictions, the Plaintiff A was aware of the circumstances that he had been, or could have been, engaged in economic activities while supporting his wife and his children during the period of operation, such as engaging in the life-long funeral of the truck after release.
Thus, Plaintiff A may be confirmed to have obtained at least the income equivalent to the daily wage of an ordinary worker after release, and therefore, barring special circumstances, such as that Plaintiff A failed to obtain income equivalent to the daily wage of an ordinary worker, such as the Defendant’s failure to conduct economic activities themselves even after release, only the difference between the income that could have been obtained as an employee of the Korea Coal Corporation and the income that could have been obtained as an employee of the Korea Coal Corporation, shall be deemed as having proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s tort.
Nevertheless, the lower court.