자유시간 중 발생한 여행자의 사망에 대한 여행주최자의 책임 - 대법원 2017. 12. 13. 선고 2016다6293 판결 -

As national economic income increases, package travel through travel agencies is becoming popular in Korea. Therefore, it is welcomed that the travel contract is defined as a new contract type in civil law. Even though the new contract type is defined in civil law, our court still uses the past judicial decisions for his ruling. Therefore, there is a great need to prepare a new interpretation method that matches the new travel contract. This paper analyzes two judgments and examines the content and limitations of the obligations of travel organizers in travel contracts. In the first case, it was a question of what obligation the travel organizer has and what is the travel defect. On the other hand, in the second case, the significance and limitations of the safety obligation of travel organizers were mainly discussed. In particular, the ruling dealt with the obligation to warn travelers of the risk and the obligation to remove the risks that would arise if they saw the danger. In the first case, the lower court did not distinguish the travel defect from the breach of safety obligation. In the second case, the lower court did not distinguish between the duty to warn the risk and the duty to eliminate the danger. In other words, the lower court had merely applied the previous decisions about the breach of safety obligation. But this judicial decisions is not enough to solve this case. Fortunately, the Supreme Court is making the right decision on these issues. In the first case, the Supreme Court granted the traveler the right to claim damages. In the second case, the Supreme Court correctly addressed the problem by distinguishing between the duty to warn of danger and the duty to remove it. Due to the nature of travel contracts, the aforementioned issues in the two cases are likely to continue to occur. Therefore, these two judgments are meaningful.