1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B had a dog raised in his house located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and the Defendant leased part of the above house from B.

B. At around 19:30 on June 14, 2016, the Defendant, while moving back to a dog without permission from B, and taking a book, became only the Plaintiff, who had been passing through her place at the front day of the Namyang-si E, Namyang-si.

However, the Plaintiff, who did not come to the opening of a dog, asked each side of the Plaintiff’s legs (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Plaintiff was subject to a diversycing and felling operation by suffering from an injury, such as a diversical heat on the right side before discharge, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Meanwhile, on April 5, 2018, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of injury by negligence in the instant case No. 2017 High Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 1413 Decided April 5, 2018. The Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred by unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff in the instant case, but the allegation was not accepted.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, the entries and images of Gap evidence 8, 9, and 22, the substantial facts to this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the Defendant, despite the duty of care to prevent the Plaintiff from suffering others, such as taking a dog, taking the dog, cutting the dog, etc., the Defendant did not put the dog properly while failing to install safety devices, such as opening the dog to the Plaintiff. The instant accident occurred, which caused the Plaintiff to go to the Plaintiff on the dog, and caused the Plaintiff to suffer significant injury because the Plaintiff did not take measures such as removing the dog immediately after the occurrence of the accident.

Therefore, the defendant is the possessor of an animal under Article 759 of the Civil Act, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff.