In a case where Gap suffered bodily injury by asking Eul of four years of age who had the wind near the pet dog while she was on a pet dog and withdrawn rest in a park, the case holding that Gap has a duty to compensate for damage suffered by Eul.

In a case where Gap suffered bodily injury by asking Eul of 4 years of age who was near the wind of pet dog when pet dog was in pet dog and withdrawn rest in a park, the case held that Gap was liable to compensate for damages suffered by Eul due to negligence by failing to perform his duty to keep the pet dog from causing harm to the surrounding people, and the guardian of her pet child is liable to compensate for damages incurred by Eul, and it is necessary to prepare against the possibility of attacking her infant in cases where her infant is in pet dog while the pet dog accompanied by the pet dog, but it is general that Gap believed that the pet dog has to take appropriate measures to prevent the possibility of the accident, and that the pet child's guardian has to take measures to prevent the accident.

Article 759 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Promotion by Public-Service Advocates)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Yong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013Gaso87074 decided July 8, 2014

April 29, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,079,385 won with 5% interest per annum from June 23, 2013 to the service date of a duplicate of the application for extension of claim and modification of cause of claim, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

1) On June 23, 2013, the Defendant, at around 11:00 on June 23, 2013, 11:0, followed by the Defendant’s wife in the vicinity of Seongdong-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) Park, she was seated with the Defendant’s wife, and she was living in a park, and she was fluencing with the Defendant’s wife that she was fluencing to the Plaintiff (living on February 4, 2009) who was living in the vicinity of the bend to the bend to the bend. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was suffering from damage to her scencenc that requires approximately two weeks of treatment (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Defendant was charged with summary order of KRW 50,000 on account of the instant accident, Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 201Da9104, which received a summary order of KRW 500,000, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as is,

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 14 (including additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

B. Determination

Although the defendant has a duty to satisfly to keep his dog from causing harm to its neighbors, the defendant suffered injury to the plaintiff due to negligence in violation of such duty, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

1) Written treatment expenses and diagnostic expenses for sexual surgery: 573,805 won (=total medical expenses of 686,865 won - Medical expenses of 113,060 won already paid by the Defendant)

[Based on Recognition] The Evidence Nos. 6 to 10, and Evidence No. 12 (including each number)

(b) Future treatment costs: 2,505,580 won;

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 4-1 to 5, Gap evidence No. 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) consolation money;

Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the accident of this case, the defendant is obligated to go against money.

The Plaintiff’s age is only four years of age and seems to have suffered considerable anxietys to the extent that it needs to be treated mentally and mentally, as well as the suffering on the part of the wife, and considering all the circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, including the background and result of the instant accident, etc., the amount of consolation money shall be 2,50,000 won.

C. Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's guardian neglected the plaintiff's guardian, and the plaintiff could have caused the accident of this case by stimulating the plaintiff's pet while playing in the same person, it should be taken into account as the plaintiff's negligence.

However, the defendant's argument is merely based on the conjection of the circumstances of the accident in this case, and the defendant's statement Nos. 1-4 (Examination of Evidence against the defendant) presented as the basis therefor is the defendant's unilateral statement, and even according to that statement, "the defendant showed that women's children's children (the plaintiff) had been snicked immediately before the accident in this case, and the accident occurred on the wind snicking snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick ssnick snick snick snick sn's own ss s argument.

3. Conclusion

A. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to claim to the Plaintiff for damages on property arising from the instant accident at KRW 3,079,385 (i.e., KRW 573,805 + KRW 2,505,580 + KRW 2,500 + KRW 5,579,385, which is the date of tort, as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, and damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 20% per annum under the Civil Act from June 23, 2013, which is the date of the first instance judgment, until July 8, 2014, which is the date of full payment, to the date of full payment.

B. If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Showon(Presiding Judge)