logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.01.14 2015나56715
부당이득금
Text

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.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 86,100 per ticket (i.e., 86,100 on January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 516,60,00 in total, from January 23, 2015, KRW 32,300, the flight ticket of Jeju Kimpo-ju on January 23, 2015).

B. During the process of issuing the airline tickets purchased from the Kimpo-m on January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff revoked the airline tickets whose name was erroneously stated as “C” (hereinafter “instant airline tickets”) and subsequently purchased the airline tickets of KRW 132,200 (= KRW 78,400, 53,800, e.g., Kimpo-m., Kimpo-mar airline tickets of KRW 78,400).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry Eul's evidence 1-1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that “I will not change the name after settlement,” on the Defendant’s website at the time of purchasing the instant airline ticket. However, there was no clear guidance that “I would have to automatically cancelled the airline ticket that would have been settled when the name of the scheduled airline ticket was changed, and purchase a new airline ticket at the site,” so that the general public can easily understand the name of the passenger at any place on the homepage.” However, the Plaintiff had cancelled the instant airline ticket due to the Defendant’s negligence and purchased the airline ticket again at KRW 46,100 or at a lower price than the initial purchase price. As such, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 346,100 (i.e., unjust enrichment amounting to the difference in the purchase price of the airline ticket, KRW 46,100, KRW 300,000).

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments, the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2-1, and Eul evidence 2-2, the plaintiff on the screen where the plaintiff entered the passenger information at the time of purchasing the defendant's airline ticket at the defendant's website.

arrow