The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,136,570 won with 5% interest per annum from November 15, 2016 to October 12, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 90% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 10% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

(a) Conclusion of travel contracts;

Around January 2016, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s mother, entered into a package tour agreement (hereinafter “instant package tour agreement”) with the Defendant, a travel agency, for the “10 days in Hoju-New Zealand Island” planned and sold by the Defendant, and paid KRW 3,998,00 (one person 1,99,000 x two person) as travel expenses, and then, he/she took a package tour at the direction of the Defendant’s employees from March 9, 2016 to March 18, 2016.

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

At around 10:30 on March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, the Defendant projected the 25-on side bus, including Nonparty 1, driving along a road in the area of New Zealand Southern Island, and the said string bus that changed the lanes to overtake the said nine-on-way passenger vehicles, and entered the right side at the same time, with the said string side of the bus, and the said string side of the bus and the said string side of the said string at the right side of the said string side conflict with each other, causing a defect in the collision of the bus (hereinafter “instant accident”). The two vehicle driver confirmed the condition of the vehicle and completed the accident without filing a report, and completed the accident.

C. The Plaintiff’s history of returning home

The Plaintiff: (a) completed a visit schedule of the shopping center for the day of the accident; (b) had been on the day of the accident and moved to the shuttle bus; (c) had to take place at the seat of the passenger; (d) however, the day of the accident, including the Plaintiff, took place on March 16, 2016, and completed the designated travel schedule by moving a new aircraft from the aircraft to the New Zealand North Island; (d) on March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff generated the launch from the bus on March 17, 2016, and was hospitalized again while moving to the ○○○○○○ Hospital around the day of the accident and moving to the Dan Islands Airport; and (e) had been hospitalized until March 22, 2016. The Plaintiff returned to the airport of the Republic of Korea to the airport of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on March 24, 2016, and then returned to the hospital.

D. The defendant's travel terms

The part of the defendant's travel terms and conditions applicable to the travel contract of this case (hereinafter "the travel terms and conditions of this case") related to this case is as follows.

Article 2. travel agencies and travel agencies, including in the text, will faithfully perform the duties assigned to travelers in the course of establishing and implementing plans for travel, including guidance, transportation, lodging, etc. to provide safe and satisfactory travel services to travelers. The kind and definition of travel under Article 3, and the definition of travel agency for overseas travel shall be as follows: <1. The package tour: travel agencies, in advance, shall provide travel services for travelers (hereinafter referred to as "tourism services"), the contents of transportation and accommodation services to be provided for travelers, and the amount of travel agency's liability for the travel agency's failure to comply with the travel agency's duty of care to provide travelers with safe and satisfactory travel services; 4. The travel agency's liability for the travel agency's failure to comply with the travel agency's duty of travel under Article 2.1 shall not be exempted from liability for damages caused by intention or negligence to the travelers, such as the travel agency's certificate or negligence. If the travel agency's failure to comply with the travel agency's duty of travel under Article 2.14.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 19, 20, 26, 33, 46, and 47, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1-2, non-party No. 1's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was faced with the head of the front seat at the time of the instant accident. Since then, the Plaintiff was able to return home on the day after the Plaintiff’s body was well-known, but the Defendant’s side failed to cooperate with this, and led to the aggravation of the Plaintiff’s health conditions. As a result, the Plaintiff was hospitalized at a local hospital, but the Defendant’s side was hospitalized at the local hospital, but the Plaintiff was subject to the treatment for which he was able to return to a foreign patient’s after-patient. The hospital was able to request the Plaintiff to return to Korea on the ground that the Plaintiff was able to return to Korea on the ground that the Plaintiff was able to return from the medical team in Korea and return to Korea.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff had no record of suffering from mental illness or suffering from treatment. At the time of the instant accident, the bus stopped with head at the front seat, and the mental health was affected by the diagnosis of “other acute mental disorder and acute stress reaction.” If the health problem is caused by the said accident, the Defendant’s home page, as well as the Plaintiff, did not do so after checking the physical condition, have to take sufficient rest and stability, and even after having verified the physical condition. If the Defendant’s employees were to immediately take appropriate measures, stability, and rest and return to Korea, without big problems, the Plaintiff was treated in Korea. The Defendant’s side employees did not take into account the concern about the occurrence of the accident and the occurrence of disorder in the entire travel schedule, thereby violating the duty to protect the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff breached the duty of care by failing to take into account the Plaintiff’s total amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff, 160 won and delay damages incurred by the Plaintiff, 250 won and delay damages incurred by the Plaintiff from New Zealand, 1650 won and 1857.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) A planning travel agency is a person with professional knowledge of the natural and social conditions of a destination as well as ordinary travel, who unilaterally determines the terms of a contract on the use, etc. of a destination or travel facilities in a superior position, while a travel agent is generally bound to conclude a travel contract in accordance with the conditions presented by a planning travel agency and trust the safety of the contract. Considering this, if a planning travel agency concludes a travel contract with a travel agent, it is reasonable to view that he/she has the following duty of safety consideration as follows. To ensure the safety of a travel agent’s life, body, property, etc., a planning travel agency must make a reasonable judgment as a professional agent by sufficiently investigating and examining the destination destination, travel schedule, travel administration, and travel service agency’s selection, etc. in advance, in order to ensure the consumer’s safety of life, body, and property. Accordingly, if it is possible for a travel agent to anticipate any danger that he/she may face even before or after departure, the planning travel agency must inform the consumer of such intent and give him/her an opportunity to choose such danger in advance.

2) According to the above basic facts, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of a local driver selected by the defendant, and as seen thereafter, it is recognized that the defendant did not take any particular measure and proceed with the existing travel schedule in spite of the plaintiff's appeal for head's certificate and requested return to Korea. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant violated the duty of care and good faith under the travel contract in this case.

Furthermore, considering the overall purport of the arguments on the following facts: “A” 12, 27 through 31, 37, 38, and 43 symptoms; the Plaintiff was unable to find out the fact that there was no mental disorder of △△△△△△△△△ after the instant accident; “Is the Defendant’s her head at the time of 2 hours after the instant accident; Nonparty 1, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, also moved to Korea on the following day after the instant accident; “Is the Defendant’s 6th day after the instant accident;” “Is the Defendant’s 6th day after the instant accident,” and “Is the Defendant’s 6th day after the instant accident,” and “Is the Defendant’s 4th day after the instant accident,” and the Plaintiff’s 6th day after the instant accident, did not appear to have any mental disorder, such as depression, and caused an attack or confusion, even after the instant accident.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages caused by the instant accident. However, in light of the fact that the instant accident appears to be a relatively minor contact accident, and that other travelers than the Plaintiff appeared not to have shown any abnormal symptoms, since the Plaintiff appears to have contributed to a considerable portion of the occurrence and expansion of damages, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 20% of the Defendant’s liability in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for in accordance with the ideology of the damage system or the principle of equity, which provides the fair and reasonable sharing of damages as the guiding principle.

B. Scope of liability for damages

(i) travel expenses;

The plaintiff argued that since the plaintiff did not properly travel with Byung due to the accident in the case of this case and returned to Korea using an overseas patient post-patient, the defendant should return KRW 3,98,00 of the travel expenses paid by the plaintiff pursuant to Articles 8 and 14 of the travel terms of this case, but the above terms and conditions stipulate the traveler's duty to compensate for damages incurred to the traveler during the travel, it cannot be concluded that the travel agent's duty to return travel expenses is recognized from the above provisions, and since there is no other assertion or proof as to the legal basis for the plaintiff to claim the return of the travel expenses, the above argument of the plaintiff is no longer sustainable without the need to further examine.

(ii) hospital expenses and medicine expenses paid by New Zealand;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8, the plaintiff received hospitalized treatment from ○○○ Hospital from March 17, 2016 to March 22, 2016, and disbursed 5,673 New Zealand dollars. From March 24, 2016 to April 3, 2016, the plaintiff paid 13,005 USD 13,005 at △△△△△△ Hospital from March 24, 2016 to April 2, 2016. The plaintiff was found to have paid 40 New Zealand USD as medicine expenses on March 22, 2016, and the fact that the exchange rate of KRW 13,76,98,50 (based on the trading rate) was significant in this court x USD 735.26,00, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff is USD 13,786,536,741,537

(iii) the transfer expenses incurred in New Zealand;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 9, the Plaintiff’s use of ample ample ample ample ample on March 17, 2016 and March 24, 2016 and paid the total of 1,600 USD 1,60. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s loss amount is KRW 1,176,416 (i.e., USD 1,600 in New Zealand x KRW 735.26).

(iv) expenses incurred in staying New Zealand;

On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff sought payment of the sum of USD 80 in New Zealand, which was paid as hotel accommodation expenses on the day of the discharge of the ○○○ Hospital, USD 233 in New Zealand, USD 79.57 in March 29, 2016, which was disbursed as expenses for the purchase of necessary goods at △△△△ Hospital’s hospitalization on March 29, 2016, USD 400 in New Zealand, which was disbursed as expenses for other hospital goods. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to view it as ordinary damages in proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care or the duty of safety consideration under the good faith principle under the travel contract, or as special damages that the Defendant could have anticipated, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

(v)the cost of transporting domestic patients;

The Plaintiff asserts that, in order to transfer the Plaintiff from New Zealand to a domestic hospital, the Plaintiff spent KRW 27,914,100 in total as well as the travel expenses, return airline tickets, equipment, and first-aid vehicle usage fees, incidental expenses, etc. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to constitute ordinary damages in proximate causal relation to the Defendant’s breach of the duty under the travel contract or the duty of safety consideration under the good faith principle, or special damages that the Defendant could have predicted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, this part

(vi) hospital expenses and medicine expenses disbursed in Korea;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 12, the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea on April 3, 2016, and received out-of-the-counter treatment from the △△△ Hospital on April 4, 2016, the △△△△△ Hospital on April 5, 2016, the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△ Hospital on April 5, 2016. From April 7, 2016 to April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff was hospitalized under the diagnosis of other acute, mental disorder, acute stress disorder, and acute stress disorder, and was hospitalized in the above hospital by September 6, 2016. Thus, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 5,743,540 in total due to the medical expenses during the above period, etc. is recognized. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s compensation is deemed to be KRW 5,743,540,540.

(vii) communication expenses;

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent 424,492 won (the portion used by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s mother, and Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2’s father Nonparty 2) in relation to the instant accident when making an international telephone inevitably between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff located in Korea due to the instant accident, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s evidence alone constitutes ordinary damages in proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s duty under the travel contract or breach of the duty of safety consideration under the good faith principle, or special damages that could have been predicted by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

8) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages amounting to 4,136,570 won [13,762,898 won + 1,176,416 won + 5,743,540 won + 20%) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 15, 2016 to October 12, 2018, which is the day following the delivery date of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in some different conclusions, the part against the plaintiff falling under the above order of payment is revoked, and the payment of the above money is ordered, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow-line (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-soo

(1) The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 48,01,285, which was obtained by deducting KRW 6,539,775 from the total amount of damages caused by the instant accident from KRW 54,551,060 in the initial complaint, from the total amount of damages caused by the instant accident, and claimed that the said deduction was withdrawn and the total amount of damages were to be paid to the appellate court (the legal brief dated September 28, 2018). However, the Plaintiff did not expand otherwise, the Plaintiff’s claim was determined to have been maintained to have been claimed in the initial complaint.