2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The defendant has resided in a plastic house located in Singu City C, and raises a dog.

B. On March 4, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) thought that the Defendant was trying to illegally flow out the living wastewater; (b) visited the Defendant’s vinyl house in order to resist it; and (c) the Defendant’s dog, which did not sell the neck, opened the hole at the bottom of the entrance of the vinyl house; and (d) laid down both of the Plaintiff’s legs.

C. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury to both slots, the rear side, the stoves, the stoves, etc. in need of treatment for approximately two weeks.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The judgment of the Defendant on the cause of the claim is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages in accordance with Article 750 of the Civil Act, since the Defendant caused the injury to the Plaintiff by negligence that did not combine the key dog.

나. 피고의 주장에 대한 판단 피고는, 원고도 피고가 개를 기르고 있는 사실을 잘 알고 있었으므로 부주의로 인한 책임은 원고에게 있고, 해도 뜨지 않은 새벽녘에 피고의 주거지에 침입하여 그 기척에 놀란 개가 원고를 도둑으로 오인하여 방어하면서 물게 된 것으로서 정당방위 또는 긴급피난에 해당하여 위법성이 없다고 주장한다.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the defendant externally expressed his/her intention not to allow any outside person's visit as well as well as the well-being of the dwelling to be protected by the defendant, the act of demanding the permission of visit by approaching the defendant's dwelling does not necessarily mean that it is unlawful as a matter of course.

Therefore, the defendant who owns a dog in the residential area has access to the outside and combines the dog in preparation for the case of seeking access to the residential area, or running away from the plastic house at least in the manner of mind.