If a plaintiff voluntarily retires from his/her office even though his/her ability to work as a mining father was reduced (negative)

Although the Plaintiff’s ability to work as a mining accident has been reduced due to a mine accident, but was able to work as a mining part, if he voluntarily retired by application, the Plaintiff could not expect retirement benefits from the retirement to the retirement age, regardless of the instant accident, so it cannot be said that the damage was caused by the reduction of retirement benefits from the process of lowering the labor ability.

Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff’s attorney-at-law conciliation system

Attorney Cho Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na67 delivered on May 14, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

According to the records, when comparing the results of the physical appraisal of Nonparty 1 and that of Nonparty 2 of the original instance trial, both parties refer to the current symptoms of the person subject to the examination, such as the left-hand framework, the minor transformation of the front-hand spons, the physical disorder of the left-hand spons, and the left-hand sponsing spons, etc., and the former shows that the treatment was completed for the physical treatment of four weeks and one-month or longer, and the former shows that the person subject to the examination can work as a light part, but the latter loses approximately 10 percent of the labor ability and lost about 8 percent of the general labor ability. It is clear that the latter loses the labor ability of 18 percent and the latter loses the amount of 9 percent of the ordinary labor ability.

However, it cannot be concluded that the result of the physical appraisal of the first instance court is presumed that the degree of loss of labor ability predicted after the closure of treatment, such as physical treatment and medication, such as the theory of lawsuit, and rather, the statement in the written appraisal has appraised the reduction rate of labor ability due to the present symptoms, and even though the enforcement date of the first instance court's appraisal has passed about six months after the date of the first instance court's appraisal, it cannot be deemed that the result of the appraisal conducted later cannot be deemed to be more correct in the case of the first instance court where the reduction rate of labor ability based on the result of the appraisal is higher than that of the first instance court's appraisal, since the result of the appraisal conducted later cannot be deemed to have violated the rules of evidence, and even if the court below rejected it without the explanation of the reasons for rejection after the adoption of the written appraisal application after the adoption of the appraisal application, it cannot be said that this is inconsistent with the reasons.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

As asserted in the arguments, it is apparent that the amount of retirement allowances to be paid at the time of retirement after the Plaintiff’s continuous employment as a mining part would be calculated on the basis of the average wage reduced according to the degree of decline in labor ability. However, as duly admitted by the court below, if the Plaintiff voluntarily retired from the mine after the instant accident even though he could have been employed as a mining part after the instant accident, the Plaintiff could not expect the receipt of retirement allowances from the retirement age after the instant accident without relation to the accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the damage was caused by the instant accident, and therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on retirement allowances.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)