1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,399,959 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 21, 2016 to October 26, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 21, 2016, the Defendant’s husband C met the Plaintiff while taking up and taking up a dog (beanan Ski) owned by the Defendant in the future of the E restaurant, which is located in Jinju-si, Jin-si, Seoul around May 21, 2016.

During the process of dividing the Plaintiff’s personnel with the Defendant, the said opening was asked for the Plaintiff’s arms, and the Plaintiff suffered injury to the Plaintiff, such as an open wound for selling for about five weeks in need of treatment.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

Although the defendant's opening had previously been a string, the defendant and C did not take measures, such as entering the defendant's opening at the time of the accident in this case.

C. C was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,500,000 in the instant case involving the injury by negligence in the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch Decision 2017 High Court Decision 477, and appealed to the said judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 4 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

A. In the event of the Defendant’s damage liability, it should be deemed that the Defendant possessed the Plaintiff’s husband at the time of the instant accident, together with C or through C.

Although the defendant neglected to perform his duty of care to prevent an accident, such as where the above dog is another person or a person does not injure his body, and thereby caused injury to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

B. According to F and G, according to the negligence set-off witness F and G, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff could see the fact that the Plaintiff was able to ask the Defendant’s dog in the direction of the Defendant after drinking alcohol.

This also appears to have caused the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, so it is necessary to reduce the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate in light of the legal ideology of offsetting negligence with the aim of fair burden of damages, or the good faith principle.

(2).