'Raised vs First Adoption'... Who Will the Judge Award Ownership of the Dog?

1st Trial 'Gireun Jeong' · 2nd Trial 'First Sale' Favor
Plaintiff Chooses Appeal... Final Judgment at Supreme Court

In a lawsuit over ownership between a person who adopted a pet dog and the person who raised it, the first and second trial courts issued completely opposite rulings. Attention is focused on the outcome of the ownership dispute that has reached the Supreme Court.

According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Civil Division 4 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Lee Won-beom) overturned the first trial court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit for the delivery of tangible movable property filed by Mr. A against Ms. B, his son's ex-girlfriend, demanding the return of the pet dog taken without permission, and ruled in favor of the defendant.

Dogs under protection at Yongin City Animal Protection Center. Stock photo unrelated to the article.
[Photo by Asia Economy DB]

Ms. B adopted a Golden Retriever in August 2017 and asked Mr. A to take care of her pet dog from time to time for about three years until August 2020. Eventually, when Ms. B said it was difficult to raise the dog after moving to a new house in August 2020, Mr. A began to take full responsibility for raising the dog.

The problem began when Mr. A's son and Ms. B broke up. In February last year, Ms. B took the dog while Mr. A was away from home, and Mr. A filed a lawsuit claiming that Ms. B had taken the dog without permission.

The first and second trial courts differed in their judgments regarding the 'affection from raising' the dog.

The first trial court recognized the 'affection from raising' and judged Mr. A, who took care of the dog, as the rightful caretaker. It considered that Mr. A raised the dog for about 30 months, bore most of the raising costs, and that the animal registration certificate listed Mr. A's son as the owner.

On the other hand, the second trial court judged that it was difficult to conclude that Ms. B had abandoned ownership simply because she entrusted the dog for a long time and did not pay the raising costs. It also recognized as favorable circumstances for Ms. B that she visited Mr. A's house to see the dog and checked the dog's condition several times, including receiving photos from her ex-boyfriend.

It was also seen as recognizing Ms. B as the owner based on the fact that in November 2020, when the dog was neutered, Mr. A told his son to "tell Ms. B as well."

The court ruled in favor of Ms. B, stating that there was no evidence that Ms. B had gifted the animal to Mr. A or expressed an intention to abandon ownership.

Mr. A chose to appeal. Ultimately, the final judgment will be made by the Supreme Court.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.