• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

The summary of the case is as follows: a Korean passenger booked and purchased a business class ticket from Air France that was scheduled to depart from Paris and arrive in Seoul. When the passenger arrived at the check-in counter, he was told that all business class seats were occupied. It was because the flight was overbooked by Air France. The passenger cancelled the Air France flight and took another air carrier. After arriving in Korea, he brought suit against Air France for damages. The purpose of this article is to discuss the governing law when interpreting the contract of international air carriage in accordance with the Korean Private International Act (2001) and to analyze air carrier's civil liability for the bumped passenger in the overbooking case. If the parties have not chosen the applicable law the contract shall be governed by the law of the habitual residence of the consumer in the following situations: prior to the conclusion of the contract, the opposite party of the consumer conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement in that country or conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement into that country from the areas outside that country and the consumer took all the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in that country or in case the opposite party of the consumer received an order of the consumer in that country [Article 27 (1), (2) of the Private International Act]. Since the contract of international carriage falls into the consumer contract, the Supreme Court viewed that the governing law of the contract in this case would be the law of the habitual residence of the consumer (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8410 decided on Aug. 28, 2014). This interpretation differs from the article 5 (4) of Rome Convention(80/934/EEC) which declares that the consumer contract article shall not apply to neither a contract of carriage nor a contract for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence. Even though overbooking can be considered as a common industry practice, an air carrier must burden civil liability in case of breach of contract for the involuntary bumped passenger(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na48391 decided on Jan. 29, 2015). In case of involuntary bumping, an air carrier must offer re-routing to passenger's final destination by an alternative flight. If an air carrier fails to effect performance in accordance with the tenor and purport of the obligation, the involuntary bumped passenger may claim damages(Article 390 of the Civil Code).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

Worldwide, so-called 'over-booking' of Air Carriers is established in practice. Although not invalid, despite their current contracts, passengers can be refused boarding, which can hinder travel planning. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that an airline carrier who refused to board a passenger due to over-booking was liable for compensation under the "Nonperformance of obligation". But what the court should be thinking about is when the benefit(transport) have been disabled. Thereforeit may be considered that the impossibility of benefit (Transport) due to the rejection of boarding caused by 'Over-booking' may be not the 'subsequent impossibility', but not the 'initialimpossibility '. The legal relationship due to initial impossibility is nullity (imposibilium nulla est obligation). When benefits are initial impossibile, our civil code recognizes liability for damages in accordance with the law of "Culpa in Contrahendo", not "nonperformance of obligation". On this reason, the conclusion that the consumer will be compensated for the loss of boarding due to overbooking by the Air Carrier is the same, but there is a need to review the legal basis for the responsibility from the other side. However, it doesn't matter whether it is non-performance or Culpa in Contrahendo. Rather, the recognition of this compensation is likely to cause confusion due to unstable contractual relationships between both parties. Even for practices permitted by Air Carriers, modifications to current customary overbooking that consumers must accept unconditionally are necessary. At the same time, if Air Carriers continue to be held liable for non-performance of obligations due to overselling tickets, it can be fatal to the airline business environment that requires overbooking for stable profit margins. Therefore, it would be an appropriate measure for both Air Carriers and passengers if the Air Carrier were to be given a clearer obligation to explain (to the consumer) and, at the same time, if the explanation obligation is fulfilled, the Air Carrier would no longer be forced to take responsibility for overbooking.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.63-96
• /
• 2013

Recently, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) expanded the "Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections" on August 23, 2011 and October 24, 2011. The Rule regulates tarmac delays, denied boarding compensation, customer service plans, and fare advertising. The adopted rule is to protect passengers by improving passenger service requirements on U.S. national or domestic carriers and foreign air carriers as well. The major issues are as follows: First, regarding to so called Tarmac Delay, carriers must establish a Tarmac Delay Contingency Plan setting forth the number of hours the carrier will permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at U.S. airports before allowing passengers to deplane. Carriers also must provide passengers with food and water in the event the aircraft remains on the tarmac for two or more hours and must provide operable lavatories and medical attention while the aircraft remains on the tarmac, irrespective of the length of the delay. Carriers also must create and retain records regarding tarmac delays lasting more than three hours. Also they need to update passengers every 30 minutes during a tarmac delay of the status of the flight and the reason for the delay, allow passengers to deplane if the aircraft is at the gate or another disembarkation area with the door open. Second, carriers now must adopt a "Customer Service Plan" that addresses offering customers the lowest fares available, notifying customers about delays, cancellations, and diversions; timely delivery of baggage; accommodating passengers' needs during tarmac delays and in "bumping cases"; and ensuring quality customer service. Third, the new regulations also increase minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650 / $1,300 or 200% / 400% of the fare, whichever is less. Last, the DOT also has modified its policies related to enforcement of Rules pertaining to full fare advertising. The Rule states that the advertised price for air transportation must be the entire price to be paid by the customer. Similarly, Korea revised the passenger protection clauses within Aviation Act. However, it seems to be required to include various more issues such as Tarmac Delay, oversales of air tickets, involuntary denied boarding passengers, advertisements, etc.