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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not engage in his/her occupation as a merchant for about three months due to the Defendant’s illegal measures prohibiting boarding of the Defendant, and caused severe mental distress. The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for property damage amounting to KRW 23,818,400, a sum of KRW 818,400 and KRW 15 million, and damages for delay.

B. We examine the following circumstances: ① The head of the security management team team B, at the time of the instant case, stated in the court of first instance that “the Plaintiff, while passing through the door detection machine on September 22, 2016, requested the Plaintiff to search with metal detection devices, but the Plaintiff refused to search and went into the front,” and ② The Defendant’s passenger transport clause No. 20(2)5, 6, 13 of the passenger transport clause stated that “the Defendant’s refusal to search and go through the door-finding machine on September 2, 2016 (No. 5),” and that “the Defendant’s refusal to search and leave the passenger terminal (no. 6) or to follow the passenger’s refusal to search and leave the bus terminal (no. 13) is reasonable and reasonable, even if the Plaintiff failed to comply with the request by the government agency or the Plaintiff’s refusal to search and leave the port for a certain period of time,” and the Defendant’s refusal to search and leave the port of time based on the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.”