손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a e-Tict through the Defendant’s “www.co.kr’s site” and “e-Tic book (e-Tic book). (B) Although the above airline tickets are set on the boarding date and time of the Seoul-Cheongbal section (name 3U8904, May 8, 2014), the Seoul 5:20:55 Seoul, May 8, 2014; (23:35, May 8, 2014); and (3) the date and time of boarding the Cheongbal-Seoul Section; and (8, June 8, 2014, the air tickets are so-called “open ticket” in which the right to board should be promised within the effective period (i.e., the date and time of boarding the Cheongbal section).
hereinafter referred to as "passenger transport contract of this case"
) For that reason, the Cheong-Tict’s Cheong-Seoul Section is the open (undetermineded).
C. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff, using the above flight, arrived at the Cheongbal on May 8, 2014.
After that, around June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant’s employees from the Cheongdu Airport to issue boarding tickets to the Defendant’s employees in Seoul, but the Plaintiff could not obtain boarding tickets due to the lack of general seat remaining on that day.
E. The plaintiff is the next day.
6.6. In other words, the defendant's employee at the above airport flight center requested Seoul to issue boarding tickets for the aircraft, but the day from the Cheongdu to Seoul did not have the defendant's flight machines.
F. The plaintiff is the next day.
6. 7. Even in the case of 7., the defendant's employee at the above airport flight center again requested the issuance of boarding tickets to the defendant's employee Seoul to the defendant, but it was not possible to obtain boarding tickets due to the absence of a general seat in that day.
Therefore, the plaintiff could no longer stay in China due to the expiration of the period of visa, and eventually, the plaintiff needs to add 770 bills to the Chinese money.
was paid in gold and issued with a higher Mclass boarding ticket than that of the general seat (Name 3U8903, June 7, 2014, Cheong-gu Seoul).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff.