A. The plaintiff is the representative of a legal entity that operates a travel agency business in the trade name of the LABC, and the defendant is a person who conducts a local travel agency business in Japan under the trade name of D.

B. On September 8, 2017 to October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received a request from nine (9) G, E, etc. (hereinafter “instant travelers”) to arrange the Japan’s Lbag and the Maciocar tour (hereinafter “instant tour”). On May 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to offer a trip schedule and hotel reservation.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant sent the travel plan and quotation to the Plaintiff five times from around that time to August 2017.

On August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,523,400 in total to the Defendant for expenses incurred in relation to the above travel.

E. During the period from September 8, 2017 to October 10, 2017, the instant traveler filed a complaint on September 8, 2017, stating that the location of the hotel was located far away from the Huoka City, and that the hotel’s situation is not good, etc.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, and Eul evidence 7 through 11]

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim, and the Plaintiff provided a hotel at a much lower level than that set forth in the Defendant’s initial estimate, and the Plaintiff breached his duty of care by not only individually resolving the instant travelers, but also having the instant travelers bear the face-to-face expenses originally planned. As a result, the Plaintiff incurred damages of KRW 208,150 for each traveler (695,250 for hotel expenses in written estimate and KRW 100,00 for hotel damages and cooking expenses). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of damages of KRW 1,873,350 for each traveler (208,1509 for each person) and delay damages.

3. First of all, the Plaintiff’s travel in this case.