[1] Details of the duty of care borne by the possessor of an pet at a public place

[2] The case holding that the owner of a pet dog shall be liable for damages to a person who sustained an injury as a result of the pet dog's escape exceeding the pet dog from the corridor of the public housing

[1] The possessor of a pet dog has a duty of care to make others not play by combining a pet dog when pet dog goes to a public place such as the corridor of the apartment house, or by blocking another person from doing so.

[2] The case holding that the owner of a pet dog is liable to compensate for damages against a person who was injured by his/her pet dog from the corridor of a public housing and his/her pet dog's escape from the pet dog to the pet dog, without a pet dog.

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dongdong, Attorneys Park Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Written, Attorneys Lee Ho-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 19, 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 1, Gap evidence 2, part of Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 10 (except for the part rejected in the future), and part of this court's entrustment of physical examination to the head of the High University Uniform Hospital, etc. of this court, and it can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments. The part of the evidence No. 10, which seems contrary, is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other reflective evidence.

A. The plaintiff is a resident in Busan Jung-gu (hereinafter omitted) and the defendant is a resident in Busan Jung-gu 712 of the same manym, and on February 26, 2007, the plaintiff is a person living in Busan Jung-gu. The plaintiff, while the 7 corridor of the last 11:15 on February 26, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the omission") passed in order to abandon food waste and return to the house, the door of the marina elevator was opened, and the plaintiff and the non-party, the defendant and the non-party, who are the defendant, were laid in the corridor when they did not combine their lines of the pet dog (hereinafter referred to as "the pet dog of this case") that were laid in the corridor when they turned in the corridor while they turned in the pet dog of this case to the opposite part of the pet dog of this case. The plaintiff's accident was beyond the part of the plaintiff's her pet dog of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's accident").

B. The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the upper right balone and the upper balone, etc., due to the instant accident, and carried out non-cerebral salone salone and balone salone salone salone and half salone salone salone salone salone sal

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, the defendant, as the possessor of the pet dog of this case, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case, since the defendant violated the above duty of care as the possessor of the pet dog of this case and caused the plaintiff to play.

3. Determination as to damages amount

(a) Expenses for medical treatment;

If 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 damages calculated (Supreme Court Decision 2002Da50149 Decided December 26, 2002).

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 4, the plaintiff's medical expenses are KRW 11,165,179,179, and KRW 1,727,98, not subject to health insurance; KRW 8,797,375, out of the medical expenses subject to health insurance, the amount of KRW 2,367,805, out of the medical expenses subject to health insurance, is the part borne by the Health Insurance Corporation; and KRW 4,116,800, excluding the part borne by the Health Insurance Corporation; and the plaintiff paid KRW 4,116,80,000, excluding the part borne by the Health Insurance Corporation, as the medical expenses; according to the above facts, the amount of KRW 4,116,80, which was deducted from the part borne by the Health Insurance Corporation, shall be deemed damage

(b) Wrasking expenses;

In full view of the purport of the argument as a whole, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7, and each statement of evidence No. 7, and the purport of the argument as to the defendant's request for physical examination of the head of the High University Uniform Hospital of this Court, on April 13, 2007, the plaintiff performed anti-pactivation of the mission in relation to injury caused by the accident of this case, and the treatment has been completed. The plaintiff did not require nursing after the treatment has been completed. The plaintiff received nursing from April 13, 2007 to April 27, 2007, and the nursing of the plaintiff's husband was provided. The plaintiff's husband's nursing was not supported. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that there is no counter-proof evidence, and therefore, the plaintiff's nursing expenses cannot be viewed as ordinary damage caused by the accident of this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(c) Compensation money;

According to the court's entrustment of physical appraisal with respect to the head of the New University Uniform Hospital, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that there was a labor disability rate of 15% due to the accident in this case, and there is no reflective evidence. In light of the above, the circumstance of the accident in this case, the degree of injury of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's aged 66 years old at the time of the accident in this case, and the defendant did not attempt to deny the occurrence of the accident in this case and to compensate for damages for about 1 year and 2 months after the accident in this case, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant due to the accident in this case as KRW 5 million.

(d) Conclusion

Thus, 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, which is the date of the decision 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 scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ha fixed-si