손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 11, 2017, at around 10:30, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the damage to the dives of the upper part of the arms and the power lines, by realizing to the dogs raised by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant dog”) in the Defendant’s orchard connections in the Defendant’s orchard C, located in the North Korea-U.S.-gun.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
The plaintiff, due to the above injury, spent 1,622,00 won for medical treatment after being treated at the D Hospital, E Hospital, and Daejeon Hospital of Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, and expected to take 6,424,870 won for future medical treatment costs.
[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the number of branch offices; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of a physical commission to the hospital before the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant, the above occupant, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case pursuant to Article 759 of the Civil Act, unless there are special circumstances.
In regard to this, the defendant indicated "agregment" on the walls, etc. of neighboring buildings, and claimed that the accident of this case was caused by the plaintiff's arbitrary entry into the orchard, which is the defendant's private land, and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable for the damage of the plaintiff to the defendant.
The proviso of Article 759(1) of the Civil Act provides that an animal occupant’s duty of care shall be determined according to the type and nature of the animal, and thus, the animal occupant’s duty of care may only be determined depending on the type and nature of the animal, and thus, the Defendant’s subjective purpose of raising a dog to protect an orchard from wild animals may not be exempted or mitigated.
Even if the accident of this case occurred within the defendant's private land, the accident of this case occurred according to the statements or images of subparagraphs 1, 3, and 5.