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

1. On August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff, as a ground for the collection of the office affiliated with the Kimhae post office, sustained bodily injury, such as watering on the part of the Plaintiff who was raised by the Defendant in the above domicile to the Plaintiff who was carrying postal items to Kimhae-si, the Defendant’s domicile, and damaging their power lines.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 【The ground for recognition” did not exist, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, and Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the accident of this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s incidental management of the dog raised by the Defendant, the Defendant, as an animal occupant, is obligated to pay 15,193,300 won, which is the sum of 53,300 won for medical expenses incurred by the Plaintiff, 10,140,000 won for future medical treatment expenses, and 5,00,000 won for future medical treatment expenses, and damages for delay.

B. 1) In full view of the facts above-mentioned basic facts where the liability for damages was created and its limitation thereof, the Plaintiff was asked to the Plaintiff for the instant accident. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may be found to have suffered bodily injury, such as the Plaintiff’s left side land and power failure damage. Therefore, the Defendant, the occupant, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the said accident.

이에 대하여 피고는 개조심 팻말을 부착하고 개를 목줄로 묶어두는 등 피고가 사육하던 개의 보관에 상당한 주의를 해태하지 아니하였음에도 불구하고 원고가 부주의하게 강아지에게 접근하여 이 사건 사고가 발생한 것이므로 피고는 원고에게 위 사고로 인한 손해를 배상할 책임이 없고 항변하므로 살피건대, 민법 제759조 제1항 단서의 면책사유는 책임을 면하려는 동물 점유자가 이를 증명하여야 하는 것으로서, 개와 같은 동물의 경우 사람에게 매우 친숙하기도 한 반면, 한편으로는 갑작스럽게 공격성을...