A Study on the Legislative Guidelines for Airline Consumer Protection

항공소비자 보호제도의 입법방향

  • Received : 2017.06.12
  • Accepted : 2017.06.27
  • Published : 2017.06.30


From a historical point of view, while the Warsaw Convention was passed in 1924 to regulate the unified judicial responsibility in the global air transportation industry, protection of airline consumers was somewhat lacking in protecting air carriers. In principle, the air carrier does not bear any obligation or liability when the aircraft is not operated normally due to natural disasters such as typhoon or heavy snowfall. However, in recent years, in developed countries such as the US and Europe, there has been a movement in which regulates the air carriers' obligation to protect their passengers even if there is no misconduct or negligence. Furthermore, the legislation of such advanced countries imposes an obligation on the airlines to compensate the loss separately from damages in case the abnormal operation of the aircraft is not caused by force majeure but caused by their negligence. Under this historical and international context, Korea is also modifying the system of aviation consumer protection by referring to other foreign legislation. However, when compared with foreign countries, our norm has a few drawbacks. First, the airline's protection or care obligations are mixed with the legal liability for damages in the provision, which seems to be due to the lack of understanding of the airline's passenger protection obligation. The liability for damages, which is governed by the International Convention or the Commercial Act, shall be determined by judging the cause of the airline's liability in respect of the damage of the individual passenger in the course of the air transportation. However, the duty to care and the burden for compensation shall be granted to all passengers who feel uncomfortable with the abnormal operation regardless of the cause of the accident. Also, our compensation system for denied boarding due to oversale is too low compared to the case of foreign countries, and setting the compensation amount range differently based on the time for the re-routing is somewhat unclear. Regarding checked-baggage claim, it will be necessary to refund the fee only from the fact that the baggage is delayed without asking whether there is any damage occurred from the delayed baggage. This is the content of the duty to care, which is different from the current Commercial Act or the international convention, in which responsibility is different depending on whether the airline takes all the necessary measures in order to prevent delaying of the baggage. The content of force majeure, which is a requirement for exemption from the obligation to care passengers on the airplane, shall be reconsidered. Maintenance for safe navigation is not considered to be included in force majeure, and connection to airplanes, airport conditions are disputable. According to the EC Regulation, if the cause of the abnormal operation of the airline is force majeure, the airline's compensation obligation is exempted but the duty to care of airline company is still meaningful. Furthermore, even if the main role of aviation consumer protection is on an airline, it is the responsibility of government agencies to supervise the fulfillment of such protection obligations. Therefore, it is necessary for the Korean government to actively take measures such as enforcing incentives for airlines that faithfully fulfill their obligation to care and imposed penalties on the contrary.


Supported by : 한국연구재단


  1. 국토교통부 보도자료 "항공교통이용자 보호기준 제정 - 소비자피해 예방한다", 2016.
  2. 권창영, "항공권의 초과예약(Overbooking)에 관한 항공사의 민사책임", 항공우주정책법학회지 제31권 제1호, 2016. 6.
  3. 김두환, "몬트리올조약에 있어 국제항공여객운송인의 손해배상책임", 항공우주법학회지 제18권, 2003.
  4. 김선이.이창재, "바르샤바조약제29조의해석및적용에관한연구- 미국판례를중심으로", 항공우주법학회지 제20권 제2호, 2005. 12.
  5. 김성미, "항공기운항자의 제3자 책임에 관한 면책사유로서의 불가항력 조항에 관한 고찰 - 독일 항공법상 해석을 중심으로 - ", 항공우주정책법학회지 제31권 제1호, 2016. 6.
  6. 김영주, "EC 항공여객보상규칙상 특별한 사정의 의미와 판단기준 - 2008년 EU 사법재판소 C-549/07 (Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia) 사건을 중심으로 -", 항공우주정책.법학회지 제29권 제2호, 2014. 12.
  7. 박희주, "동의명령제 도입에 관한 고찰", 소비자문제연구 제39권, 2011. 4.
  8. 이창재, "EU법상항공소비자보호에관한연구- McDonagh v. Ryanair 사례를중심으로-", 법학논고 제49집, 2015. 2.
  9. 이창재, "미국 연방법규상 항공여객보호제도에 관한 연구", 항공우주정책.법학회지 제28권 제2호, 2011. 12.
  10. 이창재, "운항지연에 따른승객의보상청구권", 항공우주정책법학회지 제30권 제2호, 2015. 12.
  11. 정준수, 원가 관리회계 경문사, 2004.
  12. 정준식.황호원, "항공권 초과예약의 법률적 문제에 관한 연구", 항공우주법학회지 제27권 제2호, 2012. 12.
  13. 최경은, "국제항공운송에 관한 소비자분쟁해결기준 개정방향", 항공서비스 관련 소비자 분쟁의 합리적 해결방안 마련을 위한 세미나(2016년 6월 29일 개최) 발표 자료집.
  14. 최준선, "국제항공운송협약상 사고의 개념", 항공우주법학회지 제20권 제1호, 2005, 6.
  15. 한국교통연구원, "항공교통이용자 보호를 위한 제도시행방안 연구 - 최종보고서", 2010.
  16. 항공진흥협회 발간, 항공시장동향 제55호, 2017년 1월.
  17. 황호원.조정현, "항공교통약자 안전 및 이용편의를 위한 비교법적 연구", 항공우주정책법학회 제31권 제1호, 2016. 6.
  18. "Air Passenger Rights Revision - Frequently Asked Questions", European Commission (2013. 3. 13., Brussels).
  19. Air Passenger Rights Revisited - European Commission publishes proposal for amendment of Regulation 261/2004, Clyde & Co newsletter (March 2013).
  20. Bill McGee, "Passenger rights debate on glide path to Congress," USA Today, September 30, 2009.
  21. Congressional Testimony, Airline Delays and Consumer Issues; Committee: House Transportation and Infrastructure; Subcommittee: Aviation, May 20, 2009.
  22. Elliott Blanchard, "Note, Terminal 250: Federal Regulation of Airline Overbooking", 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1803-1804, 2004.
  23. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. Doc. No. A7-0020/2014 (2014. 1. 22).
  24. Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, DOT, "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Enforcement of the Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections," April 28, 2010.
  25. Rachel Y. Tang, Airline Passenger Rights: The Federal Role in Aviation Consumer Protection, Congressional Research Service (August 17, 2016).