A dispute over the ownership of a pet dog has revealed conflicting rulings in South Korean courts. (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
SEOUL, Jun. 21 (Korea Bizwire) – A dispute over the ownership of a pet dog has revealed conflicting rulings in South Korean courts, leaving the final determination to the nation’s Supreme Court.
On June 20, according to legal sources, the Seoul High Court Civil Division overturned a lower court’s ruling in a lawsuit filed by Mr. A against his son’s former girlfriend, Ms. B, demanding the return of a golden retriever.
Ms. B had adopted the dog, nicknamed “Dangdangi,” on August 15, 2017. For nearly three years until August 2020, she frequently asked Mr. A to care for Dangdangi, later leaving the pet with him entirely, citing difficulties in keeping animals at her new residence.
However, after Ms. B ended her relationship with Mr. A’s son in February 2022, she attempted to retrieve Dangdangi, prompting Mr. A to file a civil lawsuit.
The lower court had initially ruled in favor of Mr. A, citing the “nurturing bond” he had developed with the dog over 30 months. The court stated that Ms. B had effectively gifted or abandoned ownership of Dangdangi to Mr. A by unilaterally severing the strengthened emotional connection.
The lower court also noted that Mr. A had borne most of the pet’s care expenses, and the animal registration documents listed his son as the owner, with the registration authority being Mr. A’s residential district.
However, the appellate court overturned the decision, stating, “There is no evidence that Ms. B explicitly expressed an intention to gift or abandon ownership of the dog to Mr. A.”
The appellate judges cited an instance when Mr. A instructed his son to inform Ms. B about Dangdangi’s neutering surgery in November 2020, indicating that at least around that time, Mr. A recognized Ms. B as the owner.
Furthermore, Mr. A’s son did not object when Ms. B took Dangdangi, suggesting he also considered her the rightful owner. Regarding the animal registration, the court ruled it was merely for purposes of protection, preventing loss or abandonment, and public health, not determining ownership.
Lina Jang (linajang@koreabizwire.com)
