2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiffs include the Defendant (including local visit and local travel agencies that are its agents) and the Defendant (including local visit and local travel agencies that are its agents).

(2) On the ground that the Defendant violated the duty of safety consideration for the Plaintiffs, and thus, rescinded the instant contract. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return travel expenses, etc. to its original state. 2) The Defendant, a travel agency, bears the duty of safety consideration for the Plaintiffs, who are the other party to the package tour contract, to secure the safety consideration for securing the safety of life, body, property, etc. of the Plaintiffs.

However, such obligation of travel agencies for the safety consideration is an obligation recognized in accordance with the good faith principle for the protection of travelers, and cannot be deemed as a principal obligation under a package tour contract (limited to the contract of this case only). Even if based on the above basic facts, it is difficult to view that the defendant or his local travel agency seriously violated the duty of safety consideration to the plaintiffs to the extent that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs can seek damages against the defendant due to the above violation of the duty of safety consideration, but it is not possible to rescind the contract of this case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. 1) The planning and travel agency (a) is liable to compensate for damages due to nonperformance. The planning and travel agency (a) is a contract with a professional knowledge about the natural and social conditions of destination as well as ordinary travels.