A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are adjoining neighbors who reside next to each other, and the Plaintiff’s house and the Defendant’s house are in front of the Plaintiff’s house and the Defendant’s house, and they are marinas jointly used by the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “mail”).

B. The Defendant’s Jatatat (hereinafter “Defendant dog”) experienced the escape solely. Around April 18, 2018, around 11:00, the father and the Plaintiff, a neighboring resident, were bound by the Defendant dog, but the Defendant dog was broken down with the wind.

C. On April 18, 2018, at around 11:40, the Plaintiff and the father of C, who had been divided into the Ma Party’s ma, had the Defendant dog go to the Plaintiff by hand, thereby deeping the Plaintiff’s her arm’s length and left bridge.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C dealt with the Defendant’s dog with the monging of the steel mon, etc., and removed the Defendant dog from the Plaintiff, and eventually, Defendant 119 members were anesthesia.

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as partial damage to the part of the front part of the front part of the right part, the depth part of the front part of the right part, the depth part of the upper part of the upper part, the satisfaction part of the upper part of the left part, and the structural frame of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part.

E. Due to the foregoing injury, the Plaintiff undergone an operation on Apr. 18, 2018, such as dives and satisfying dysat, and satisfying fysat, and subsequently received hospitalized treatment from Apr. 18, 2018 to Jun. 13, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 12 (including each number in the case of additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) The possessor of an animal shall be liable to compensate for any damage inflicted on another person unless it proves that he/she has not neglected due care in keeping the animal in accordance with the description and nature of the animal;

(Article 759 of the Civil Act). (b)

According to the above facts, the defendant, as the possessor of the defendant dog, suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.