beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a dog and a book that he raises.
The road in front of the defendant's house was passed.
The opening of the Defendant was in the Defendant’s housing mast, and the opening of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was only about, and the road was used to gather the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)
The Plaintiff’s opening suffered injuries, such as the multi-copic intersections before and after the left-hand side of the instant accident, the left-hand cells, etc., and the Plaintiff spent KRW 2,422,400 as the medical expenses.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 16, fact inquiry results against Cmedical Center of this Court, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful against the principle of res judicata by the act of putting the good faith, even though the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming KRW 1,930,000 for medical expenses incurred due to the instant accident by the Incheon District Court 2018Gau10253, which had been brought by the Plaintiff, but decided to withdraw the lawsuit through conciliation.
In light of the overall purport of the oral argument, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for damages. On August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff is deemed to have constituted a voluntary conciliation on the following grounds: (a) although it is recognized that “the Plaintiff withdraws the instant lawsuit and the Defendant consented thereto,” the Plaintiff waives the right to claim compensation for damages arising from
Inasmuch as there was no statement that the Plaintiff would not institute a new lawsuit, even if the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit again, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the good faith principle or a violation of the prohibition of re-instigation.
Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.
3. Determination
A. We examine the occurrence of the liability for damages, and the defendant as the owner and possessor, and as the owner and possessor, the defendant does not cause any injury to the other parts of his own dog, or does between theme and the road.