Attorney Lee Yong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) In order to take the return dog on February 18, 2007, the Plaintiff paid and purchased 2.5 million won per sales unit the female of the private placement dye (the birth date: December 28, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the “the instant pet dog”) of the female of the dye of private placement dye from A.

(2) On May 6, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) paid KRW 400,000 to the Defendant, who had operated a dog training center; and (b) entrusted the instant dog to obey training; (c) on June 7 and July 8, 200, the Plaintiff extended the training period of the dog to one month.

(3) However, on August 1, 2007, where the pet dog of this case, which was trained by the Defendant, continued to be clean and clean, the Defendant brought the same day to the new city veterinary hospital in which B is operating.

(4) 피고는 B에게 이 사건 애완견이 '열 받은게 아닌가 생각된다'는 취지로 이야기 하였고, 진료 당시 위 애완견은 체온이 41.5도로 고열이 있었고 헉헉거리고 침을 흘리는 등 호흡에 일부 이상이 있었는데, B는 진료 후 위 애완견에 대하여 열사병에 의한 이상고열 또는 감염에 의한 열병이 의심된다고 판단하였고, 그 판단에 따라 위 애완견에게 항생제와 해열제를 처방하였다.

(5) However, on August 2, 2007, the instant pet dog died of a new wall. On the same day, the Plaintiff performed cremation and funeral on the same day, and paid KRW 400,000 to C at its expense.

(6) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming damages with the Defendant, claiming medical negligence with respect to B, but the decision of recommending reconciliation between the Plaintiff and B became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff paid one million won to the Plaintiff on July 13, 2008 in accordance with the said decision of recommending reconciliation. [Grounds for recognition] The facts and absence of dispute, the entries in Gap 1 through 4, and 10 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. Determination

A person entrusted with the exercise of a pet dog shall be obligated to take necessary measures, such as the maintenance of a physical environment, the adjustment of training, etc. so as not to harm life and health in the course of training or waiting or breeding for the exercise, as incidental duties under the good faith principle accompanying the training entrustment contract, and the truster shall be liable to compensate for damages caused by violation of such duty of protection.

However, in full view of the fact-finding results of the fact-finding on X animal hospitals and Korean Veterinary Medical Association of this Court, the instant pet dog was killed as a heat-dead soldier (or a private soldier) in the course of training or waiting or breeding from the Defendant, and the Defendant was negligent in failing to take appropriate measures to protect the above pet dog in the process of such fact-finding.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damage caused by the death of the pet dog of this case.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Property damage;

(1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the damage 3.7 million won due to the loss of the instant pet dog was 5 million won for the price at the time of the death of the said pet dog, and that the Defendant was 5 million won or 1 million won for the said pet dog. However, considering the Plaintiff’s purchase price (2.5 million won), the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as the training expenses for the said pet dog (1.2 million won), the Y farm (5 million won), the court’s Y farm (5 million won), the Korean pet dog Association (1.5 million won), and the fact-finding results as to the price at the time of the said pet dog’s death, and the age and training period of the said pet dog, it is reasonable to view that the price at the time of the said pet dog’s death

(b) Funeral expenses: four hundred thousand won;

(3) The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 700,00,00 for the expenses required for the deposit of a charnel house in this case and one million for the director’s expenses to be incurred in the deposit of a charnel house in this case. However, there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s losses corresponding to each of the above expenses and the Defendant’s violation of the duty to protect the Defendant. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(b) consolation money;

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the reason why the plaintiff purchased the above pet dog, the reason why the plaintiff purchased the above pet dog, and the period during which the plaintiff actually raised the above pet dog, the consolation money of the plaintiff shall be set at one million won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages amounting to 4.1 million won (total damages amounting to 5.1 million won - one million won that the plaintiff received from B) and the damages amounting to 20% per annum under the Civil Act for the period from August 31, 2007 to August 28, 2008, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, since August 31, 2007, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, to pay damages amounting to 4.1 million won per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 29, 2008 to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is partially