The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a contract for liability insurance with C for daily life.

On January 12, 2019, around 14:00, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident that Da in front of the D Building in Jeju Island (hereinafter “the instant dust dog”) caused the left hand to cover from the Jatatatus (hereinafter “the instant dust dog”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The instant accident was diagnosed by the Plaintiff on the left-hand ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground ground

[Ground of recognition] According to the facts of recognition as the basis for the liability for damages arising out of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 8 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), as a whole, the defendant is the insurer C who is an animal occupant as provided in the main sentence of Article 759(1) of the Civil Code, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

The defendant asserts that the defendant is not liable for the plaintiff's damages according to the proviso of Article 759 (1) of the Civil Code since he did not neglect due care in the custody according to the type and nature of animals.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant fulfilled his duty of care provided in the above proviso, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

In light of the fat pattern of this case confirmed through the Plaintiff’s photographic data and the degree of the injury of the Plaintiff, the fat dog of this case has a considerable size, and its force seems to be reasonable. In light of the fact that there was a history of causing others as well as the Defendant, it is necessary for C to pay thorough attention so that the fat of this case does not question others.

The proviso of Article 759(1) of the Civil Act.