beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 23,636,00,000 and 5% per annum from January 1, 2018 to May 22, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendants, as married couple, live in a dog (hereinafter “instant dog”) in their own residence.
The Defendants, around 16:00 on December 31, 2017, loaded digging in Austria in order to transport diggings in the vicinity of the Hanjin-gun, Gangwon-gun, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, in order to transport diggings in the vicinity of the Hanjin-gun, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province. In addition, the Defendants were bound to reduce the instant openings in Austria.
B. Since then, Defendant D had led the instant dog and the said lecar, and had the front of the Gangnam-gun G, Cho Jin-gun, the Plaintiff’s early domicile.
However, the unit of this case was unfolded, and the opening of this case was caused by an accident, such as the Plaintiff’s right-hand part and the waiting part in the parking lot, which led to the Plaintiff, which was playing in the front and front of the mother’s residence of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”).
In the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered damages and heat from the diversified malm, macker, and macker’s macker’s mack, and macker’s macker’s mack. (hereinafter “instant injury”).
C. Prior to the instant accident, the instant dog was in the shape of the Defendant’s neighbor, and was in the state of not wearing the dog at the time of the instant accident.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 4, 11, and 12 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's images in Gap's 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In full view of the purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, while managing the instant dog, had a duty of care to prevent the instant dog from being damaged by others, such as putting the dog properly, wearing a protective gear such as a dog, etc., but did not properly put the dog, and the instant dog caused the instant accident by failing to wear protective gear, such as the entrance dog, etc., leading the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants sustained the injury of the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendants are the Civil Code.