The Right to Reimbursement of Package Travellers Against Air Carriers

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국항공우주정책⋅법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 항공우주정책 ·법학회지 / 40권 / 1호 / 3 ~ 50페이지
· 저자명 : 김현정

초록

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the interpretative reasoning adopted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in HQ and Others v. Aegean Airlines SA (Case C-163/18), focusing on the issue of determining the entity responsible for refunding airfare when the flight forms part of a package travel contract. In this case, the CJEU unequivocally held that, where a passenger holds a right to reimbursement against the travel organizer pursuant to the EU Package Travel Directive 90/314, the operating air carrier is not additionally liable for a duplicate refund under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on air passenger rights. This judgment constitutes a seminal precedent addressing the apportionment of liability within complex contractual arrangements that combine elements of both package travel and air carriage. It has been widely regarded as a foundational case offering interpretive guidance for resolving regulatory conflicts between overlapping norms and for clarifying the structural framework of air passenger protection law in the EU.
After setting out the factual background, legal issues, and judicial reasoning in the judgment, this paper proceeds to identify several normative implications for the Korean legal system through a comparative legal analysis. First, the Korean legal framework currently lacks clear statutory criteria for allocating refund liability between air carriers and travel agencies, resulting in inadequate regulation of hybrid contractual structures. Second, the existing provisions under the Aviation Business Act and the Guidelines on the Protection of Air Transport Users focus primarily on pre-contractual information duties, without establishing substantive standards for determining the entity responsible for processing refund claims. Third, the financial security scheme mandated under Article 7 of the EU Package Travel Directive 90/314—which requires travel organizers to maintain financial guarantees in case of insolvency—highlights the need for analogous legislative reform in Korea, such as mandatory insurance coverage beyond a certain threshold or the establishment of a public compensation fund.
Future research should expand upon this analysis by examining the liability regime and compensation mechanisms of air carriers in a wider range of dispute scenarios, including flight delays, double bookings, and service failures. Furthermore, subsequent studies should explore the need for a comprehensive redesign of Korea’s legal framework for air passenger protection, with particular emphasis on adapting to the evolving dynamics of air travel and tourism markets increasingly mediated by digital platforms.

참고자료

· 없음