When the retirement age of the mining part is 53 years of age pursuant to an agreement between labor and management, it is justifiable to determine whether the operating year of the mining part is 53 years of age.

When the retirement age of the mining part is 53 years old by an agreement between the labor and management, it is justifiable to determine the working age of the mining part at the time when 53 years old.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Go Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Coal Corporation (Attorney Jeon Young-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1644 delivered on December 20, 1968

The defendant's failure portion recognizing the plaintiffs' property damage from the original judgment shall be revoked and this part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal as to the part that recognized the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money is dismissed.

The costs of the final appeal arising from the preceding paragraph shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff 1 would be able to work as a mining father until the end of 55 years of age, which would not exceed his average remaining life. According to the records, the fact that the retirement age of the mining department is 53 years of age under an agreement between the defendant Corporation and its affiliated mining department, i.e., labor-management, is not disputed between the parties, and therefore the fact that the fact that the retirement age of the mining department is 53 years of age is 53 years of age is justifiable unless there are special circumstances, barring special circumstances, even though the court below determined that the person who retired 53 years of age of 55 years of age or older from the first instance witness pen can work as a mining father at other mining stations, the above operation year is in violation of the rule of experience as to evidence evidence.

The judgment on the ground of appeal No. 4

Although the earned income tax, etc. withheld in calculating the lost profit, it cannot be ruled that the court below erred in the calculation of the amount of damages even if the court below did not deduct the earned income tax, etc. withheld from the monthly income tax withheld from the monthly income amount as Plaintiff Kim Dong-dong.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 6

It is reasonable that the court below recognized consolation money in order to avoid the mental damage of the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as KRW 200,000, KRW 150,000, and KRW 100,000 for the plaintiff Kim Dong-dong, and that the above recognition amount is excessive in light of social norms.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal as to the claim for consolation money is dismissed, and the part of the judgment of the court below as to the claim for damages against property is reversed by the second and fourth grounds of appeal (to omit judgment on the grounds of appeal on the money). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri