Under the Plaintiff’s claim, the amount of loss from May 13, 1969 is assessed and the delay damages for this is calculated from July 31, 1968.

At the request of the plaintiff, the amount of loss of profit from the next day after the completion of the medical care is calculated from the next day after the first accident, and the damages for delay is calculated from the next day after the first accident.

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 394(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Korea Coal Corporation

Seoul Civil Area and Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3021 delivered on December 3, 1970

Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendant on the claim for damages against lost profits of Plaintiff Kim Yong-il is reversed, and this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal concerning this part shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's representative's ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in the case where the plaintiff Kim Yong-ran retired after continuous service for the period of 53 years and four months from the time of the accident at the time of the accident, which would have been the retirement allowance that would have been received at the time of the accident, and the retirement allowance according to the claim is calculated based on the evidence. We review the record and find it reasonable. The records show that the court below erred in the incomplete hearing without exercising the right of explanation as pointed out, or did not err in the misapprehension of the law without any evidence. Since the court below's reasoning that the calculation period of the retirement allowance should be the date of actual retirement, it is just due to the erroneous understanding of the purport that the original decision should be the date of actual retirement, or on the premise that the original judgment did not have been recognized, the court below's legitimate judgment of evidence and fact-finding are discussed

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below calculated damages from May 13, 1969 to the age of 55, the day following the day when the period of medical care due to an accident occurred, as claimed by Plaintiff 1, and ordered the defendant to pay the damages at an annual rate of 5% from July 31, 1968, the day following the day when the accident occurred to the age of 55, and the day after the accident occurred to the day after the full payment. However, as requested by Plaintiff 1, the court below calculated the amount of profits loss from May 13, 1969, which is the day following the day when the period of medical care due to an accident occurred, and calculated damages for delay from the day after the accident occurred to July 31, 1968, which affected the contradiction of the reasons or the result of the judgment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is reversed.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the evidence adopted by the original judgment, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is a physically handicapped person who cannot perform his duties as a mine worker who is a special duty. Therefore, even if the plaintiff lost 40 percent of his ability as a mining worker due to the accident in this regard, it is reasonable to recognize that the above degree of loss of his ability cannot be employed as a mining worker, and it is reasonable to recognize that the above degree of loss of his ability cannot be recognized as a whole as a loss of his ability, and there is no error of misconception of facts in light of the rules of evidence. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, among the original judgment, the part against the defendant as to the claim for damages against plaintiff Kim Yong-ju's lost profit, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal as to this part shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)