In a case where Party A entered into a travel contract with Party B, a travel agent, and was traveling to Thailand in accordance with the planning tour schedule, Party B did not inform Party B of the fact that Party B’s local Drick’s scheduled schedule was cancelled and the location of the beer and the beer and the location of the beer and the beer that Party B was extremely dangerous and dangerous in the vicinity of the beer, and Party A was killed or injured by robbery on the way that Party B went to the beer and went to the beer, the case recognizing Party B’s liability for damages.

In a case where Party A entered into a travel contract with Party B, a travel agent Eul, and was traveling to Thailand in accordance with the planning tour schedule, and Party B did not inform Party B of the scheduled schedule of destination and the location of the beer house located outside the beer, and did not inform Party B of the fact that the location of the beer and the beer house was changed to the beer and was in depth, and Party A was in serious danger to the beer and damaged around the beer, the case held that Party B was liable for damages due to the robbery by violating the duty of care, without notifying Party A of the danger surrounding the beer’s life, body, etc., even though Party A was negligent in taking necessary measures to ensure the safety of Party B’s life, body, etc., the local travel agency or the employees of Party B, while neglecting the duty of care, and introducing the beer house outside the beer, which was in contravention of the duty of care.

Article 2 Subparag. 3, Articles 12, 13, and 14 of the Tourism Promotion Act; Articles 2, 390, 391, and 680 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Case Non-Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Volcan, Attorney Dompop, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 20, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,553,371 won with 5% interest per annum from November 5, 2013 to June 15, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 31,848,671 won with 5% interest per annum from November 5, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 5, part of Eul evidence Nos. 5, witness Nos. 1 and 2, part of the testimony of non-party No. 1 and non-party No. 2, fact inquiry results of the court's fact inquiry and the whole purport of the pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged and contrary to Eul evidence No. 5 are not believed.

1) On October 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for a new package tour with the name of the goods, “cockash and grassball,” the travel period of which is four (6) days from November 3, 2013 to six (8) of the same month, from November 3, 2013.

2) The above travel is a planned trip for a traveler who wishes to travel overseas, setting forth in advance the destination and time schedule of the trip, contents of services such as transportation and lodging, and any matters limited to the charges of the traveler’s service, including transportation and lodging, and inviting participants to participate therein.

3) The contents of the above travel contract are subject to the standard terms and conditions of overseas travel. According to the above standard terms and conditions, travel agencies shall faithfully perform their duties entrusted in the course of formulating and implementing plans for arranging travel, including transportation and lodging, in order to provide safe and satisfactory travel services to travelers (Article 2(1) of the above standard terms and conditions of travel). The travel agencies are liable for damages to travelers in relation to the travel agency’s duties prescribed in Article 2(1) from the departure to the arrival of the travel agency’s employees, local travel agencies, or their employees, etc. (Article 8 of the above standard terms and conditions of travel), and travel agencies are liable for damages to travelers if they inflict damages on travelers by intention or negligence by local travel agencies, etc. (Article 14(1) of the above standard terms and conditions of travel).

4) Meanwhile, the case entered into a liability insurance contract with the Defendant, an insurance company, and the travel agency. From July 7, 2013 to July 27, 2014, the insurance period is from July 2013 to July 27, 2014; the insured is liable for damages caused by the insured’s fault on the part of the insured and the person representing the insured in performing the travel agency’s business.

5) From November 3, 2013, the Plaintiff began to travel to Thailand in accordance with the schedule of the said new tour. According to the schedule of the trip, on November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) was scheduled to take a night-market border (Sari-gu Sari-do Sari-si), but Nonparty 3 revoked this and got the Plaintiff’s husband and wife to take a meal at the night-sari-si, at around 19:00, while Nonparty 3 had the Plaintiff’s husband and wife do so.

6) Nonparty 3 did not inform the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, etc. of the location of the beer and malle, in depth, of the location of the beer and malle, and of the fact that the retail machine was high and dangerous around the above malle.

7) The Plaintiff’s husband and wife went out of Nonparty 1’s husband and wife and went to the above beer, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

B. Relevant legal principles

In light of the fact that a travel agency unilaterally determines the terms of a contract on the use of a destination or a travel facility in a superior position as a person who has specialized knowledge about the natural and social conditions of a destination as well as ordinary travel, while a travel agency unilaterally determines the safety of a travel agency and executes a travel contract in accordance with the conditions presented by a travel agency, as an incidental duty to a package tour contract, in order to ensure the safety of a traveler's life, body, property, etc. as an incidental duty to a package tour contract, a travel agency shall make a reasonable judgment as a specialized travel agency by sufficiently investigating and examining in advance the destination destination, travel schedule, travel administration, or the selection of a travel agency, etc. in order to ensure the safety of the traveler's life, body, property, etc. as an incidental duty to a package tour contract, and shall take reasonable measures such as taking measures to remove any danger prior to the implementation of the contract, or giving a traveler an opportunity to choose such danger to him/her at the time of a travel agency's overseas travel (see Article 16-3 of the Tourism Promotion Act, 2, as an assistant, etc.).

C. Sub-decision

According to the above facts and the above legal principles, although local travel agencies or non-party 3, who is employed by them, bear the duty of care to take necessary measures to ensure the safety of the plaintiff's life, body, etc., they did not notify the plaintiff of the risks of loan and loan, but rather introduced beer houses outside loan, thereby causing damage due to robbery by violating the duty of care.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff according to the above insurance contract with the case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's non-performance of fault defense

Although the defendant alleged that the travel agency case and the non-party 3 did not have intention or negligence, it is difficult to believe that part of the Eul evidence No. 5 was stated, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Scope of damages.

In full view of the statement Nos. 4 and 7 evidence, the results of physical examination on the director of the Synish Hospital Hospital at the school of the court and the overall purport of the arguments, the following damages are recognized (However, it shall be calculated according to the discount method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5% per month, and any amount below KRW 5% for the convenience of calculation shall be discarded).

(a) Active damage;

Total of 4,041,668 won (=1,326,421 won for outpatient treatment and medicine expenses + 2,715,247 won for hospitalization treatment and medicine expenses)

(b) Actual profits; and

1) Facts and evaluation of recognition

(1) Gender and date of birth: Residual (date of birth omitted).

(2) Age at the time of an accident: 35 years of age and 2 months;

(3) Operating period: The 22th day of each month until the person reaches the age of 60.

(4) Job and actual income status: Urban daily wage of 83,975 won (the second half of the year 2013).

(5) Ratio of loss of labor ability: 3%.

The daily income of 1 m1 m2 m2 m1-2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m1-2 applied on November 5, 2013, August 9, 2038, 2038. 83,975 1,847,450 3.00% on August 297, 297, 193.00 0,000 on October 09, 297, 193.00 10,699,697,284

2) Calculation: 10,697,284

C. Limitation on liability

In other words, although Nonparty 3 introduced beerhouse, the scope of the Defendant’s liability is limited to 60%, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as above: (a) although the Plaintiff couple did not notify Nonparty 3 in advance and found it at beerhouse; (b) the Plaintiff couple’s husband and wife was responsible for the beer house at a relatively late time; and (c) the Plaintiff’s husband and wife went back to beer with the beerhouse.

(d) Condolence money;

The consolation money shall be determined as KRW 2,00,000 in consideration of the Plaintiff’s gender, age, occupation, background and result of the occurrence of the instant accident, and all other circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case.

(e) Deductions of self-charges;

Although the defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 5 million should be deducted according to the insurance contract between the case and the case, it is not sufficient to recognize the amount solely with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, since there is no particular dispute between the parties that should be deducted in the amount of 290,000 won, it should be deducted from the amount of damages.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 10,553,371 [the damages amounting to KRW 4,041,668 + lost profit + KRW 10,697,284 + damages amounting to KRW 6/10 of comparative negligence + KRW 2,000,000 - self-charges deduction amounting to KRW 290,000] from November 5, 2013 to June 15, 2016, which is the date of this decision where it is recognized that it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of his/her obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff at each rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Civil Act, and damages for delay calculated from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-won