A claim for a refund of the excess payment of an Internet service for 52 months due to failure to terminate the service contract 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
A claim for a refund of the excess payment of an Internet service for 52 months due to failure to terminate the service contract
Date
2020-04-20
Hit
476
On March 26, 2011, the Applicant signed a contract for the Internet service with the Respondent (contract period: three (3) years, hereinafter referred to as ‘the contract’), and paid a usage fee of KRW 25,040 per month. Some three (3) years later, around March 2014, when the Applicant moved to a new place, he/she contacted the Customer Service Center of the Respondent and requested the termination of the contract. However, the service remained unterminated and the Applicant unknowingly continued to pay the usage fee by direct debit for the following period of 52 months, from around March 2014 to July 2018.
1. The Applicant(consumer)
The Applicant claimed the refund of the usage fee paid by direct debit because he/she did not use the Internet service for 52 months from around March 2014, the date when he/she claims to have originally requested the termination of the contract, to July 2018.
2. The Respondent(business operator)
The Respondent claimed that it could refund the usage fee charged for the last one (1) year, but could not accept any further refund, given the fact that the Applicant’s original request to terminate the contract could not be found, and that the usage fee for the contract was properly charged regardless of whether the Internet service was actually used.
According to the terms and conditions of use of the contract, in the event of a conflict over the date of the termination of a contract between the Respondent and a customer, the following day after the date of application for termination is regarded as the date on which a customer actually wishes to terminate the contract (provided, however, that if the customer cannot prove the fact that he/she has applied for the termination of a contract, the following day after the initial date when the dispute occurs is regarded as the date when the customer actually wants to terminate his/her contract), if the customer can prove the fact that he/she applied for the termination of the contract. However, in this case, considering that the Applicant cannot prove the fact that he/she applied for termination of the contract, that he/she did not check whether the termination had been processed properly even after he/she had applied for the termination, and that he/she did not check that the usage fee was no longer being automatically debited from his/her account, it is proper to consider that the Applicant was careless about the termination of the contract.
Conversely, considering that the Respondent did not check that the Applicant had not logged into the Internet for more than four (4) years, and continued charging the usage fee, and that the Respondent finally confirmed that the Applicant had not logged into the Internet for the period of January 2016 to August 2018 (which was permitted so as to check the Applicant’s log-in history), when the dispute arose after the Applicant became aware that he/she had continued to be charged for the usage fee, it is difficult to accept the claim made by the Respondent that he/she will refund only the excess usage fee paid for one (1) year.
It is not possible to know clearly the facts as to whether the termination of the contract involved in this case was properly processed, but according to Article 741 of the Civil Act, a person who benefits from another person’s property or labor without any legal cause and inflicts damage on that person due to that benefit shall return the benefit in question.
Therefore, since the usage fee charged by the Respondent from March 2014, when the Applicant moved to a new place, to July 2018 was the fee for the Internet service which the Applicant did not use for the period in question, it is appropriate that the Respondent should return some of the benefits earned from the usage fee. However, considering that the carelessness shown by the Applicant in not checking whether the termination of the contract involved in this case had been properly processed contributed in part to the expansion of the damage, and that the aim of settlement is the smooth resolution of disputes through the equal sharing of losses and mutual concessions, it is only right and proper that the Respondent should offer a refund of KRW 651,000 (the amount less than KRW 1,000 is rounded down), which is 50% of the total amount of the usage fee charged for 52 months (KRW 1,302,080; KRW 25,040 × 52 months), to the Applicant.
Based on the above reasons, we hereby decide and order as follows:
The Respondent shall pay KRW 651,000 to the Applicant by April 25, 2019, and if the Respondent delays the payment, the Respondent shall pay any additional liquidated damages accruing from April 26, 2019 by the date of completion at an annual rate of 6%, according to Article 54 of the Commercial Act.
[Relevant laws] Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article of 54 of the Commercial Act
