207dada 82390 Damage, Claim

A

Law Firm X

[Defendant-Appellant] K

B

Y Law Firm, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

March 19, 2008

April 16, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 9,116,80 won with 5% interest per annum from February 26, 2007 to April 16, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. A half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from February 26, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, part of Gap evidence No. 10, Gap evidence No. 10 (excluding part rejected in the front and rear), and this court's physical appraisal as a result of this court's physical appraisal as to the hospital director A, and the whole purport of the plaintiff's principal examination as a result of the whole, and there is no other counter-proof.

A. The plaintiff is a resident of the Jung-gu Busan Metropolitan City, and the defendant is a resident of the same kind. On February 26, 2007, the plaintiff is a person who is the resident of the same kind. The plaintiff, while the corridor of the 7th floor of the last session was opened in order to throw away food waste and return to the house, the door of the pet dog raised by the defendant and the non-party C, who is the defendant, in his house (hereinafter referred to as "the pet dog of this case") was not integrated with a pet dog that he raised at his house (hereinafter referred to as "the pet dog of this case"), and the pet dog of this case was broken down to the wind coming from the pet dog of this case, and the accident of this case was occurred beyond the plaintiff's pet part (hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case") by viewing that the pet dog of this case was driven back to the opposite part of the pet dog of this case.

B. The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the upper right balone, the upper right balone, and the upper right balone, and carried out non-blood balone and balone balone balone balone and half balone balone balone balones of human mission due to the instant accident.

2. Determination on the establishment of the right to claim damages

The possessor of the pet dog has a duty of care to prevent others from attacking other persons by combining the pet lines when pet dog goes to the public places such as the corridor of the apartment house, or by preventing them from attacking other persons.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case because he violated the above duty of care as the possessor of the pet dog of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case.

3. Determination as to damages amount

(a) Expenses for medical treatment;

In cases where a victim who received insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act claims for damages against a third party, the insurance benefits should be deducted from the amount of damage calculated in accordance with the National Health Insurance Act. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff’s medical expenses amounting to KRW 11,165,179, and KRW 1,727,98, which are not subject to the health insurance; KRW 8,797,375, out of the medical expenses subject to the health insurance, are the health insurance expenses amounting to KRW 8,797,377,80, and KRW 2,367,804, which is the Plaintiff’s own burden; the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 4,116,800, excluding the expenses borne by the health insurance Corporation, can be acknowledged as having not been reflected. According to the above recognition facts, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s payment of the health insurance expenses amount to KRW 4,116,80,00.

(b) Wrasking expenses;

In full view of the evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 7, and the purport of the entire argument as a result of physical examination of the plaintiff's body entrusted to the director of the hospital A of this court, the plaintiff implemented anti-pactafism against the mission of the human body on April 13, 2007, and the treatment was completed, and the treatment was not required after the treatment was completed, and the plaintiff did not require the care. The plaintiff received the nursing care from April 13, 2007 to April 27, 2007, and the other plaintiff's husband's nursing care was provided, and there is no counter-proof. In light of the above facts of recognition, it is difficult to view that the nursing care of the plaintiff is particularly necessary. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's nursing expenses cannot be viewed as ordinary damage caused by the accident of this case, and this part of the allegation is without merit.

According to the result of the physical examination commission for the director of the hospital at this court, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the rate of 15% labor disability occurred due to the accident at issue, and there is no reflective evidence. As seen above, the circumstance of the accident at issue, the degree of the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff's old female at the time of the accident at issue, and the defendant did not attempt to deny the occurrence of the accident at issue and the liability for damages for about 1 year and 2 months after the accident at issue, and did not attempt to compensate for damages. In light of the fact that the defendant did not attempt to deny the occurrence of the accident at issue and the liability for damages during 1 year and 2 months from the date of the conclusion of the pleading

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 9,116,80 won with 5% per annum from February 26, 2007 to April 16, 2008, the sentencing date of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-k