(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts above, the establishment of one liability for damages caused by the Defendant’s occurrence of the instant accident by asking the Plaintiff, and thereby, the Plaintiff may be recognized as having suffered injury, such as damage to the upper part under the right arms. Therefore, the Defendant, the said occupant, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident pursuant to Article 759 of the Civil Act.

As to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff is not liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident, since the plaintiff's arbitrary entry into the defendant's office was an incidental approach to the plaintiff's dog, and the defendant is not liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident.

However, the reason for exemption under the proviso of Article 759(1) of the Civil Act is that the possessor of an animal who intends to be exempted from liability bears the burden of proving it. In general, since the dog is of a usual infinite nature, there is a risk that the dog may infinite at any time due to a lack of ordinary knowledge even if it is difficult to understand, the dog was in a very short manner so as to prevent visitors, etc. from dumping into the Defendant’s house from taking safety measures or installing appropriate facilities for blocking access, such as mooring the dog, etc., but the Defendant was not the defendant, and the dog was integrated into a hump.

Circumstances, such as having been placed in a single place, are the ratio of responsibility between the victim and the animal occupant.