2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 14, 2017, the Plaintiff drafted an application for adoption and provisional protection of the instant medical dog with the Defendant, as a non-profit volunteer chain, who is engaged in protection activities for organic dogs through the Internet NAB “C” (hereinafter “the instant Kaf”), due to traffic accidents caused by the Defendant, and is transferred to the Defendant one mat as indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “the instant Mafat”), and drafted an application for the adoption and provisional protection of the instant medical dog.

B. The Plaintiff stated in the above application that “in the case where there is a companion animal that the Plaintiff is unable to pay,” and consented to the maintenance of joint ownership with the Defendant for one year after the adoption [the name of the owner of the registered chips (at that time, one year after adoption) at the time of adoption was C of the Defendant’s representative.

(i)the information has been indicated in the column as "agreement", the person responsible for adoption (counseling) has given an explanation about the gravity and responsibility expenses, has sufficiently understood the responsibility expenses and has paid the responsibility expenses.

(In the event of the dissolution of a contract, the liability amount is not refunded) indicated as "e.g.," and around that time, the Defendant paid 150,000 won of the liability amount to the Defendant.

C. Around September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff delivered the instant medical unit to the Defendant.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 25, 2017, through a veterinary hospital affiliated with the Defendant, the Plaintiff received the health examination of the instant medical dog, and delivered the instant medical dog to the Defendant for the purpose of performing a neutic surgery. The Defendant refused to return the instant medical dog without justifiable grounds. As such, the Plaintiff sought the return of the instant medical dog to the Defendant.

B. The adoption agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant medical dog is terminated due to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to dissolve the adoptive relation, and the Plaintiff is no longer the owner of the instant medical dog, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

3...