A. On March 19, 2015, the Defendant raised a part of the Plaintiff’s dwelling maat (hereinafter “the instant part of the dog”).

B. The instant pet dog died on April 5, 2015 (hereinafter “instant accident”) when he/she was suffering from blood transfusion on the part of his/her her m and her mar.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above recognition of the occurrence of the liability for damages, the defendant, who caused the management of satatatat raised by himself, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages of the instant accident.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that there was no negligence of the defendant since the other ambats raised by the plaintiff, other than the ambat of this case, and the defendant's ambats cut the ambat, and the accident of this case occurred beyond the ambat, but the above assertion is not accepted without any evidence to acknowledge it

(In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is abuse of right, but the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be seen as abuse of right just because the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with excessive amount of money.

(1) According to the evidence No. 8, the Plaintiff’s disbursement of KRW 100,00 to cure the instant dog.

(2) The Plaintiff seeking compensation of KRW 16.2 million paid during four and a half years of the instant pet dog. However, the aforementioned expenses are only the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in maintaining and managing the instant pet dog, and they do not constitute damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s death of the instant pet dog. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Unlike ordinary goods, the owner of a pet dog who owns the consolation money has a life, in contrast to the following: (a) the pet dog is divided into mental ties and peties; and (b) the pet dog has a life.