손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 18, 2017, 198, Doz. (hereinafter “this case’s Doz.”), Doz. (hereinafter “Doz.”), owned by the Plaintiff, Doz. (hereinafter “Doz.”), Doz. (hereinafter “Doz.”), Doz. (hereinafter “Doz.”), Doz. (hereinafter “Doz.”), Doz. (hereinafter “Doz.”). (hereinafter
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) b.
The Plaintiff, at C Hospital on November 18, 2017, received treatment of the instant pet dog from D Veterinary Hospital on November 21, 2017 and November 23, 2017, but eventually, the instant pet dog was killed due to the instant pet dog.
C. The sales price of the instant pet dog was KRW 500,000,000, and the Plaintiff spent KRW 220,000 in C Hospital, KRW 100,000 in D Animal Hospital, and KRW 250,000 in total due to the medical expenses incurred from the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 8, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 11-1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;
A. Article 759(1) of the Civil Act provides, “The possessor of an animal shall be liable for damages inflicted upon another person. However, this shall not apply where he/she fails to exercise due care in the custody of the animal, depending on the type and nature of the animal.” According to the above facts, the Defendant is the possessor of a satat, an animal, who is the possessor of the sat, is liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the instant accident pursuant to the main sentence of Article 7
B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) took care of the instant pet dog with a large voice while putting the pet dog in a sat and controlling the satat; and (b) prevented the access to the instant pet dog with a stone or a glusium; (c) even though the instant pet dog was sat, the dispute was caused by attacking the pet dog, and the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care as an occupant of the animal, and thus, is liable for damages pursuant to the proviso of Article 759(1) of the Civil Act, since the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care as an occupant of the animal by preventing the dispute and arranging the situation.