The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff as to lost income is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal by both parties and the grounds of incidental appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the maximum working age [the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”).

(3) Ground of appeal No. 3 and ground of incidental appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea

A. In the Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu16867 Decided December 26, 1989 (hereinafter “former en banc Decision”), the Supreme Court discarded the existing position that deemed the maximum working age of a person engaged in ordinary physical labor or a person engaged mainly in physical labor (hereinafter “physical labor”) as 55 years in light of the empirical rule.

It has maintained the view that the maximum working age of physical labor should be 60 years in light of the empirical rule.

However, as the social economic structure and living conditions in Korea rapidly improve and develop and improve the legal system, the circumstances that served as the basis of the above empirical rule have been significantly changed at the time of the previous en banc Decision, thereby making it difficult to maintain the above view any longer.

Now, barring special circumstances, deeming that a person is able to operate between 60 and 65 years of age as well as 65 years of age is in accord with the empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909 Decided February 21, 2019).B.

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, has earned income equivalent to the statistical income of those who had worked for not less than five years but less than ten years from the real estate business experience in the report on the actual status survey by employment type

It was difficult to conclude that a person could have obtained or could have obtained a future.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the calculation of lost income, as otherwise alleged in the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

C. However, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the maximum working age ought to be deemed until reaching the age of 65, and from the date of the instant accident.