(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.09.27 2019나278 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.09.27 2019나278

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion was made at the domicile of the plaintiff and raised 13 horses in the village, and the defendant was raising more than 10 horses in Gwangju mine area C adjacent to the plaintiff's domicile.

In the meantime, the dog owned by the above defendant escaped around 10:0 on July 14, 2018 and died by asking all 13 mariths of the plaintiff's chickens.

Although the defendant has a duty of care to prevent opening of dogs from escape, and neglected to kill the plaintiff's chickens due to escape from the defendant's dog in violation of this duty, the defendant has a duty to compensate for the total of KRW 445,000 which died in compensation for damages (=13 x 65,000), KRW 350,000 which died in compensation for damages, and KRW 4,195,000 which is the sum of the damaged chickens repair expenses, KRW 350,000, and KRW 3,000 which were damaged.

2. The fact that the defendant is the owner of the Gwangju Mine-gu C building, and the fact that the dogs are becoming the owner of the above building is not a dispute between the parties.

However, in light of the circumstances that show the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), i.e., the defendant leased the above building to another person and resided in another place, and ii) the non-party D submitted a written statement that he was able to look at the dogs located in the above building, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is the owner or manager of the dogs located in the above building, or that the above dogs were dead by asking the plaintiff's chickens.

There is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.08.21 2020고정889

-전주지방법원 2019.04.11 2018나7163

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2016.09.28 2016고단843

-창원지방법원 2016.05.25 2015나7750

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.05 2018고정693