Claim for refund of payment following cancellation of purchase of monitor by electronic commerce 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Claim for refund of payment following cancellation of purchase of monitor by electronic commerce
Date
2020-09-14
Hit
723
The petitioner bought a monitor on the electronic commerce website of Respondent 1 sold by Respondent 2 (the “monitor in question”) on June 5 2019 and paid Respondent 1 KRW 259,000.
The petitioner received the monitor in question on June 6 2019 and found a scratch on the screen. The petitioner requested Respondent 2 take back the product.
Respondent 2 replied to the petitioner that any damages would be attributable to the petitioner as the package was not damaged and the monitor in question would not be refundable or exchangeable.
The petitioner claimed the refund of the monitor in question, contending that the monitor in question was damaged when delivered. On the other hand, Respondent 1 contended that Respondent 2 held tenaciously to its stance about the damage to the monitor in question hence unable to take an action, and Respondent 2 contended that the damage should not be considered to have occurred during the manufacturing process given the thorough inspection applied to the monitor production line and the pattern of the damage to the monitor panel should not be considered to have occurred during the manufacturing or delivery process, nor should it be considered to have occurred during delivery as the package was not damaged, hence unable to accept the petitioner’s claim.
Under Article 17(3) of the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commere, Etc., a consumer who concludes a purchase agreement on goods or services (“goods, etc.”) with a mail order distributor is entitled to cancel the agreement if the content of the goods, etc., is different from those provided in the agreement within three months from the date of receiving the goods, etc., or within 30 days from the date on which he/she noticed or could have noticed such a fact. As the petitioner requested the refund on June 7 2019 on which the petitioner received the monitor in question, which is within 30 days from the contract date, it should be considered that the order under that agreement had been legitimately cancelled.
Concerning the dispute between the parties about the damage to the monitor in question, Article 17(5) of the same Act provides that whether the consumer is responsible for damages to goods, etc., shall be proven by the mail order distributor. The contention of Respondent 2 that the production line is thoroughly inspected and the pattern of the damage to the monitor panel should not be considered to have occurred during manufacturing or delivery scarcely warrants the petitioner being responsible for the damage to the monitor in question, and the contention of Respondent 2 is based on insufficient evidence.
Article 18(1) of the same Act provides that if the consumer cancels the order under Article 17(3), he/she shall return the goods, etc., received, and Paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that the mail order distributor shall refund the payment within three business days from receiving the goods, etc. Paragraph 11 of the same Act provides that if the mail order distributor is not the recipient of the payment, they both shall be jointly liable for the refund of goods, etc., upon cancellation of orders under Article 17(3). Thus, it is reasonable that the petitioner hands over the monitor to Respondent 2, the costs and expenses for the return should be borne by Respondent 2, and Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 as the recipients of the payment for the monitor in question should be jointly liable pay the petitioner KRW 259,000 that petitioner paid for the monitor in question within three business days from the date on which the monitor in question is received, and in the event that Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 delay the payment, late-payment penalties at a rate of 15% per annum should be added under Article 21-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
[Relevant laws, regulations, notifications, etc.] Article 17 and Article 18 of the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commere, Etc., Article 21-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commere, Etc.
Therefore, the decision has been made as stated above on the above-stated ruling ground.
1. The petitioner shall hand over the monitor to Company B that is one of the respondents, and the costs and expenses therefor shall be borne by Company B.
2. The respondents, Company A and Company B, shall be jointly liable to pay the petitioner KRW 259,000 within three business days from the date on which Company B receives the monitor from the petitioner under Paragraph 1.
3. In the event that the respondents, Company A and Company B, delay the payment payable under Paragraph 2, late-payment penalties at a rate of 15% per annum shall be added.
