A. At around 19:00 on July 17, 2015, Defendant D: (a) boarded and arrived at the plaza in 59, the Jeju-si Office Building, and (b) opened the door of the vehicle, and (c) opened the Plaintiff A’s right bridge and opened the door on the square.

이에 원고 A의 모친 원고 C는 진돗개를 �아 내려고 하였으나 진돗개가 원고 A에게 계속 달려들어 원고 A의 머리를 물어뜯었다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

As a result of the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered from an open wound of two feees, etc., and Plaintiff C suffered from knee knee knee tye ma.

C. Meanwhile, on January 22, 2016, Defendant A received a summary order of KRW 3 million (No. 2015 High Court Decision 2015Da9975) on the part of the injury caused by negligence in accordance with the facts stated in the above paragraph (a) and confirmed as it is, Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is an insurer who entered into a liability insurance contract with Defendant D for daily life compensation.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 7 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. According to the above facts, Defendant D neglected the duty of care to take protective measures for citizens' safety such as fat and fat, and caused the instant accident by neglecting the duty of care. The Defendants jointly are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising from the instant accident.

B. The Defendants asserted that the negligence of the Plaintiff C neglected the Plaintiff’s negligence, thereby restricting the Defendants’ liability. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff C neglected the Plaintiff’s negligence, and rather, the fact that the Plaintiff C was injured during the fat dog, as seen earlier, is identical to the fact that the Plaintiff C sustained an injury. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.