The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

1. If the parties to a contract that has foreign elements do not choose the applicable law, the law of the country most closely related to the contract shall be the applicable law in accordance with Article 26 of the Private International Act;

However, in a contract entered into by a consumer for purposes other than occupation or business activity (hereinafter “consumer contract”), where the other party to the contract conducts occupation or business activity in the country prior to the conclusion of the contract, such as soliciting the transaction by advertising, etc., or conducts an act necessary for the conclusion of the contract in the country (Article 27(1)1 of the same Act), or where the other party to the contract receives the order of the consumer in the country (Article 27(1)2 of the same Act), etc., even if the party did not choose the governing law, Article 27(2) of the same Act is applied, and the law of the habitual residence of the consumer is the governing law.

Therefore, even if the contract of carriage or the contract of service is provided outside of the place of habitual residence of the consumer, it should be viewed equally in the case of consumer contract.

2. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 27 of the Private International Act, on the ground of the Rome Convention (the European Community Convention on the Governing Law of Obligations under Contract), etc., does not apply to a transport contract or a contract where services are provided exclusively at a place other than a consumer’s habitual residence, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 27 of the Private International Act as to a consumer contract ought to apply the air passenger transport contract following the purchase of air tickets of this case.

Therefore, this judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the determination of governing law in international air passenger transportation contracts and consumer contracts.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, it is possible.