1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) On July 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) opened a pet line on the street near the Kimhae-dong, Kimhae-dong apartment, Kim Jong-si, and opened the pet line, and was negligent in drinking water; and (b) the said pet dog was suffering from damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation by asking the Plaintiff’s right-hand her part one time (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) On January 16, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 as the Changwon District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 201Da1516, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 7 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant neglected his duty of care to prevent harm to others, such as the absence of others. Accordingly, the defendant's pet dog asked the plaintiff, thereby causing the plaintiff's injury, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damage caused by the accident of this case.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Positive damage 70,340 won (A evidence 1);

B. According to the evidence No. 1 of passive damage Gap, since the plaintiff received an outpatient treatment for 18 days, the daily wage of an ordinary worker at the time of the accident shall be calculated as 1,465,974 won (18 days x 81,443 won) based on the daily wage of an ordinary worker at the time of the accident.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's wife is not more than 18 days of treatment, and that the daily wage of ordinary workers is more than the plaintiff's income at the time of the accident, so the calculation of the daily income is unfair.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire argument, are as follows. The plaintiff, at the end of visiting several hospitals as a concern about infections, provided a vaccination against luminous disease to the National Medical Center located in Seoul, and the defendant, after being served with a duplicate of the complaint of this case, obtained evidentiary documents that the defendant received a vaccination against luminous disease.