The purpose of this study is to survey relative influence of justice and authenticity upon customer response in service recovery. Prior researches on service recovery so far have emphasized on recovery in the cognitive aspect called justice and recovery satisfaction. However, at the point of time that many researches on consumer science consider the emotional and psychological aspect as well as consumers' cognitive aspect, the consideration on this aspect will be necessary even in the service recovery. Accordingly, this study aims to suggest authenticity in addition to justice as a plan for service recovery and to figure out different influential level of these two recovery plans upon customers' response. Through this, the aim is to compare how the justice and authenticity change the response of customers, who experienced in a situation of service failure, thereby making it reach the recovery process. The following are the specific research objectives of this study. First, the aim is to compare relative influence of justice and authenticity upon customer forgiveness. As prior researches have mentioned so far, this can be said to be the examination on whether the offer of other element in addition to justice can be the better recovery plan than justice as well as the examination on whether justice is the sole plan for customers' service recovery. Second, the aim is to compare relative influence of justice and authenticity upon recovery satisfaction. So far, the prior researches have discussed about relationship between justice and recovery satisfaction and have discussed about what the justice dimension is that has the greatest influence especially upon recovery satisfaction. However, if satisfaction can be influenced by cognitive and psychological factors, the recovery satisfaction even in service recovery will be able to be influenced even by psychological aspect as well as cognitive aspect. Third, the aim is to compare relative influence of recovery satisfaction and forgiveness upon a change in customer response. The aim is to examine whether it is changed more greatly by customers' satisfaction with company's recovery effort or is changedmore greatly by customer forgiveness through company's recovery effort if the customer response after failure is changed through company's recovery effort. The findings are summarized as follows. First, as a result of comparing the relative influence of justice and authenticity in an effort for service recovery upon customer forgiveness, the authenticity in an effort for service recovery was indicated to have the greater influence upon customer forgiveness. Also, interactive justice out of justice was indicated to have influence upon customer forgiveness. Thus, the distributive justice and procedural justice were indicated not to have influence upon customer forgiveness. Hence, even if justice can increase satisfaction as mentioned in prior researches, it was indicated to be factor that is difficult to obtain customer forgiveness. Second, as a result of comparing relative influence of justice and authenticity in an effort for service recovery upon recovery satisfaction, the authenticity was indicated to have greater influence upon recovery satisfaction than procedural justice and interactive justice. Distributive justice was shown to have no significant difference. This outcome implies that the recovery satisfaction is influenced even by authenticity as well as justice. As this implies that satisfaction can be influenced by both cognitive factor and psychological factor, it is suggesting that the recovery satisfaction is possible even by authenticity, not what the recovery satisfaction is made only by justice. Third, a sense of disappointment, which was experienced given failure, was indicated to decrease when customers forgave service failure through authenticity in company's effort for recovery. Psychological status like disappointment and frustration, which were experienced from counterpart, isn't easy for being changed. However, if forgiveness is made through understanding about situation and position of being faced by the counterpart, it can change negative psychological status even if being a situation of conflict. Fourth, the customer forgiveness on service failure was indicated to change customer evaluation on service quality, which was made in a situation of service failure, into the positive direction. In a situation of service failure, a customer comes to have negative evaluation on service quality of the failed company. However, the customer forgiveness through a recovery effort with authenticity comes to have power of changing this negative evaluation into positive direction. This implies that the customer forgiveness can change even cognition, not what changes only customers' emotion, and is suggesting that forgiveness is not what ends in forgiveness itself, but what makes it think and evaluate in the positive direction about the counterpart of having given damage. Fifth, the customer forgiveness was indicated not only to decrease customers' negative behavior(negative word-of-mouth, switching) according to service failure, but also to increase customers' positive behavior(re-visit). This implies that forgiveness ultimately has influence upon customers' emotion, cognition and even behavior. As psychologists mentioned, the forgiveness is being shown to possibly change emotional, cognitive and behavioral system. Sixthly, as a result of comparing relative influence of customer forgiveness and recovery satisfaction upon a change in customers' emotion, evaluation, and behavior, the customer forgiveness was indicated to have greater influence upon a change in customer's disappointment, service quality evaluation, and behavior than recovery satisfaction. This is suggesting that forgiveness is more important factor than recovery satisfaction in order to change customers' emotion, cognition, and behavior into the positive direction through an effort for recovery after service failure in service company