2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The amount calculated by 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

H. D. D.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On July 24, 2005, the Plaintiff is the owner of “B” female female stringr (hereinafter “the instant opening”) with the name of “B,” and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with C with DF Lastaba2.0 automobiles (hereinafter “the instant car”). C around 15:15, 2016, while driving the instant car at F at F, the Defendant did not see the instant dog, which was a path to go outside the road to the Plaintiff, while driving the instant car at F., and shock (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”).

3) The instant dog suffered injuries, such as alleys, due to the instant traffic accident, and the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,786,950 in total as indicated below for the instant medical expenses.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with a number)

B. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above medical expenses 1,786,950 won and damages for delay due to tort.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances known from the facts, it cannot be deemed that C’s negligence exists with respect to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident. (1) According to Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Animal Protection Act and Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Animal Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27444, Aug. 11, 2016), “animal subject to registration” means a dog (No. 1) raised in a house or quasi-housing under Article 2 subparag. 1 and 1-2 of the Housing Act, and (2) a dog raised for the purpose of returning (pineh) in a place other than a house or quasi-housing under subparagraph 1 in a place other than a house or quasi-housing under subparagraph 1.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Animal Protection Act, "owner, etc." means a person who raises, manages, or protects animals on behalf of the owner of the animal.

According to Article 13(2) of the Animal Protection Act and Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Animal Protection Act, when an owner, etc. is accompanied by an animal subject to registration and going out of the Republic of Korea, the owner, etc. shall take safety measures, such as a lines, etc. In such cases, the line shall maintain the length to the extent that does not cause harm (harm) to others. According to Article 47(2)4 of the Animal Protection Act, the owner, etc. who did not take safety measures in violation of Article 13(2) shall be punished by an administrative fine

Although the opening of this case falls under the above animal subject to registration, the Plaintiff, the owner, did not take safety measures, such as a lines, against the opening of this case.

2) The Plaintiff did not see that the instant car was coming from, and caused the instant traffic accident by allowing the Plaintiff to enter the instant dog toward the Plaintiff. 3) At the time of the instant traffic accident, C driven the instant car at a low speed.

Nevertheless, it seems that the size of the instant plant variety is very small, and it was very difficult to avoid the instant traffic accident and it seems that the instant plant variety was very small.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

* The ruling of small-sum case may choose not to state the reasons in accordance with Article 11-2(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act.