1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 23, 2017, at around 23:50, the Plaintiff was walking the Plaintiff’s dog and walked 1.67 meters (breadth). However, the Defendant’s Mat (16km) together with the Defendant was sat (16km) on the India’s convenience store table, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s dog suffered injury, such as the pelf’s heart, the front bridge’s pelf’s pelf’s pelf’s pelf’s pelf’s pelf’s pelb

The defendant paid 330,500 won to the initial emergency treatment costs.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,541,100 as additional medical expenses for the Plaintiff’s dog, such as conducting MRI photographing solely based on the doctor’s opinion that it is difficult to accurately diagnose the state of the relevant plant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, even though the defendant had a duty of care to prevent a dog from attacking another person or another person's animal by taking the dog when the defendant goes out and going out, the defendant did not have safety devices, such as a dog, and did not put the dog properly, thereby leading the defendant's dog back to the plaintiff's dog by asking the plaintiff's dog.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 759 of the Civil Act, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for additional medical expenses of KRW 1,541,100 as damages incurred by the plaintiff possessed by the defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) carried the Defendant’s dog (1.5m) shorter than the length of India; and (b) fully performed the Defendant’s duty of care to prevent accidents, such as taking the Defendant’s dog’s middle line, etc.; (c) the Plaintiff’s dog was not the center side of India, but the Defendant’s dog was bound by mistake that the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff’s dog to go on the right side of the table, which is close to the tables, and thus, is not liable.

However, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident, the width of the delivery, etc., the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, who was walking along the delivery, shall be delivered.