The case holding that the owner is liable for damages on the part of the negligent scambling dog without permission by the owner.

Since Dogggs are highly likely to cause serious character of female people, when the owner entrusts them to another person, he/she shall confirm whether the Dogs are able to safely manage and keep the Dogs, and shall be entrusted only to cases where the facilities are equipped with such facilities, so that he/she has a duty of care to prevent the accident, so if the accident occurred without confirmation, he/she shall be liable to compensate the owner for the damage caused thereby.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 759 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court (79Gahap880)

(1) The part of the original judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay is revoked.

(2) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 600,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from July 6, 1979 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

(4) The costs of lawsuit shall be five equal parts through the first and second trials, and three equal parts shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

(5) Paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,704,00 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the day following the service of a copy of this case to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

On June 17, 1976: (a) around 00, the Plaintiff suffered from a telegraphic window throughout the house of Nonparty 1 in Busan East-gu, Busan-dong, 3 (detailed address 1 omitted); (b) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; and (c) considering the whole purport of the pleadings in part of the testimony of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 and the result of the verification of criminal records of party members, the above dog is the Defendant’s possession, and it is hard to recognize that Nonparty 1 had a large number of houses with the character of being well-known, and it is hard to recognize the fact that Nonparty 4 lent to Nonparty 4 through Nonparty 4, who was frightened from the Defendant to make a vessel at the above time, and it is hard to recognize the fact that Nonparty 5’s testimony was partially frighted and transferred at the time of the above 4th trial without compensation by asking the Plaintiff’s dump and dump witness at the time of the above 5th trial.

However, when lending the above dog to another person, the defendant, who is the owner of the above dog, has a duty of care to check whether the above dog is equipped with facilities to safely keep and manage the above dog and prevent the accident by the dog. According to the above quoted evidence, the defendant neglected it and has a separate dog to keep the above dog in custody (which shall be made by making the dog straw and wire straw, and have a facility to prevent people's access). Thus, it can be recognized that the plaintiff caused the accident due to the negligence that caused the plaintiff's damage caused by the accident. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident.

The defendant recognized 30,00 won on July 9, 1976 on behalf of the non-party 1, who is the direct custodian of the above non-party 4's joint and several liability with the defendant or the non-party 4's non-party 1, and agreed to pay 20,000 won on December 18, 197, and thus, the plaintiff's claim was unjust. Thus, the plaintiff's claim was accepted 20,000 won on December 18, 1976, and it is hard to recognize that the non-party 4's statement and the non-party 4's statement that the non-party 4's statement were non-party 4's criminal fact-finding and the non-party 4's statement that it was non-party 4's criminal fact-finding since it was hard to acknowledge that the non-party 6's statement was non-party 4's non-party 5's criminal fact-finding and the result of the evidence of the above non-party 4's statement.

However, in full view of all the testimonys of the above witness non-party 4 and 5 and part of the result of the examination of the above criminal records, the plaintiff found that the plaintiff 1 had drinking alcohol at the time of the accident and performed in the house of the non-party 1 had been in the house at the time of the accident, and had access to the math of the above math, and caused the above ethic nature of the above ethic dog by play, and there is no dissenting evidence, and therefore, it is obvious that there was a significant negligence on the part of the plaintiff in the accident, and therefore, it should be considered in determining the amount of damages.

2. Scope of damages.

(A) Property damage

In full view of the contents stated in the evidence No. 5-1, 2 (Medical Certificate, Estimated Treatment Expense Statement), and evidence No. 1 (Certificate), which can be acknowledged as the authenticity by the testimony of Non-Party 7, the witness of the court below, and the whole purport of the testimony of the above witness, the plaintiff used 124,000 won of medical expenses for the treatment of Non-Party 7, who was hospitalized in the Non-Party 7, who was located in the Dongdong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City from June 17, 1976 to July 4, 197, due to these injuries, for the treatment of Non-Party 7, who was located in the Non-Party 5-1, 2 (Medical Certificate, Estimated Treatment Expense Statement), and the testimony of the above witness. There is no evidence to oppose this.

In addition, the plaintiff alleged that (1) even after discharge, the plaintiff consumeds 180,000 won in 190 won in 150,000 won in total each day of 90 days for treatment of the injury, and (2) the plaintiff lost 600,000 won in 150,000 won in 150 won in each month because the plaintiff was unable to engage in driving service for 4 months due to the injury. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff used 60,000 won in 15,00 won in 150 won in each month after discharge, and the whole purport of the testimony and arguments by non-party 2 of the court below witness Nos. 2 without dispute over the establishment of the accident can be recognized, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was engaged in driving at the time of this accident (the plaintiff does not prove that there is no proof at several times of party members).

Therefore, property damage suffered by the Plaintiff in the instant accident is a total of KRW 1,474,00,000, and when considering the negligence of the Plaintiff as seen earlier, the money to be paid by the Defendant is reasonable as KRW 500,000.

(b) Mental damage (defensive material)

It can be sufficiently ratified in our rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered a considerable amount of mental pain due to the accident. The amount of such pain should be 100,000 won in consideration of the course and result of the accident, the degree and degree of injury, the degree of negligence of the plaintiff, and all other circumstances shown in the argument.

(C) Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 6, 1979 to the date following the day on which the copy of this case was delivered at the plaintiff's request. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified to the extent recognized above, and the remainder of this claim shall be dismissed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment which differs from this conclusion is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is reasonable only for this part, so the original judgment is revoked within the above limit, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed without any reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 89, Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 199 of the Civil Execution Act, and Article 199 of the provisional execution with respect to the burden of litigation costs

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines