logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.10.26 2017나51737
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff and his wife B entered into a cruise tour contract (hereinafter “instant tour contract”) with the Defendant on behalf of C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Incheon Airport on August 7, 2015, starting from Hong Kong on the same day to board the cruise ship at Hong Kong on the same day. On the 12th day of the same month, the Plaintiff and his wife entered into a cruise tour contract with the amount of KRW 2,300,000 per person per travel price.

B. The Plaintiff opened three tour goods in his/her own name and deposited KRW 178,200 in total, and deposited KRW 2,400,000 on April 3, 2015 to the Defendant’s account in Youngnam Business Division G, respectively.

6. The remainder of KRW 11,222,60 was remitted to the Defendant’s account, and all Plaintiff’s daily travel expenses were paid.

C. On August 3, 2015, B was diagnosed with a strong pressure table on the same day, and was hospitalized and discharged on August 10, 2015 from the Haryary Department on the same day (after that, the Plaintiff was hospitalized again at the I Hospital). On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the absence of travel and requested a refund of travel expenses, but the Defendant rejected the request.

The remainder of plaintiffs except B depart from the Incheon Airport to board the Hong Kong Flight scheduled to take off at 9:0 a.m. on the day of the trip of this case. However, as the departure of the above flight aircraft due to gaseous defects was delayed and became 14 a.m. on the same day, it was impossible to board the cruise vessel departing from Hong Kong on the same day. Accordingly, the defendant presented a substitute schedule that includes the provision of hotel free hotel accommodation in Hong Kong and the air tickets from Hong Kong, but the plaintiff she rejected and returned to the Republic of Korea.

E. The Plaintiff returned 2,354,000 each travel expenses to four remaining one, except B.

F. On June 15, 2016, the Defendant remitted a refund of KRW 1,800,000 per person (30,000 per person) following the cancellation of boarding of the Plaintiff’s aircraft at the Plaintiff’s account.

recognized.

arrow