Claim for refund on purchase cost due to cancellation of airline ticket 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Claim for refund on purchase cost due to cancellation of airline ticket
Date
2020-10-20
Hit
870
On May 16, 2019, the petitioner purchased (hereinafter "Contract of this case") five domestic airline tickets (Flight schedule: (Departure) Rotorua, 11:00 on December 26, 2019, NZ6783 (Arrival) Queenstown, 14:40 on January 2, 2020, NZ622, hereinafter "Airline tickets of this case") of A Airline (not subject to this settlement) at KRW 1,268,400, sold by the respondent operating as mail order distributor.
The petitioner requested cancellation and refund for the Airline tickets of this case to the respondent on June 19.
The respondent replied that these Airline tickets of this case cannot be cancelled, and denied the request.
The petitioner purchased five Airline tickets of this case, and requested cancellation and refund to the respondent after approximately one month. However, the respondent replied that these Airline tickets of this case cannot be cancelled, and denied the request. The petitioner requests refund for the purchase cost of the airline tickets, on the basis that the tickets could not be recognized as non-refundable tickets which their refund policy was indicated in English and was located on poorly visible section. Meanwhile, the respondent contends that the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted, as the respondent notified refund policy of A Airline (not subject to this settlement) to the petitioner when entering the Contract of this case.
Upon review of this case, the respondent falls into the category of mail order distributor under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the 「Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc.」(hereinafter "Electronic Commerce Act"), shall indicate, advertise, or notify trade agreement in an appropriate manner under Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the「Electronic Commerce Act」, indicate information and product and others in terms comprehensible to the consumer according to the「Public Notice on Provision of Information on Products in Electronic Commerce, Etc.」in an appropriate manner, and indicate additional explanations such as footnotes next to a foreign language or terminology which must be used, so that consumers can easily understand its meaning. However, the respondent provided the refund policy of A Airline (not subject to this settlement) only in English during the purchase of Airline tickets of this case, and instructed the petitioner to contact the staff in charge if information on policy needs to be reviewed. Given these facts, it is not deemed that the respondent clearly provided information on refund policy - a terms of business which impact the consumer to purchase or not.
Furthermore, given the following rationale, it is deemed appropriate that the respondent pays back KRW 1,000,000 among the purchase cost for Airline tickets of this case to the petitioner; i) the petitioner cancelled the Airline tickets of this case six months before the boarding day, ii) according to the 「Criteria for Settlement of Consumer Disputes」specified as a criteria for agreement to seek amicable resolution in accordance with Paragraph 2 and 3 of Article 16 of the 「Framework Act on Consumers」and Article 8 of the 「Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Consumers」, a refund shall be made by deducting the cancellation fee from the purchase cost of the airline tickets which were all never used, iii) compared to nonoccurrence of cancellation fee when cancelling the airline ticket 91 days before departure date in accordance with cancellation policy on airline tickets of A Airline (not subject to this settlement), the terms of non-refund policy of the respondent is excessively burdening the consumer with duty to recovery with no probable cause and thereby invalid according to Article 8 and Subparagraph 4 of Article 9 of the「Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions」. Still, given that the respondent i) is at least notifying airline cancellation policies on its reservation screen, and ii) is willing to settle the dispute amicably through yielding between both parties and equal contribution of damage, it is deemed appropriate that the respondent make refund of KRW 1,000,000 from the purchase cost of Airline tickets of this case to the petitioner.
Therefore, it is reasonable that the respondent shall pay KRW 1,000,000 to the petitioner by March 17, 2020. When the respondent fails to pay the amount specified above, the respondent shall pay loss incurred by delay at an annual rate of 6% with the amount payable from March 18, 2020 to the day it is fully reimbursed in accordance with Article 54 of the 「Commercial Act」.
[Relevant laws, notifications, etc.] Article 54 of the 「Commercial Act」, Article 9 of the「Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions」, Articles 2 and 13 of the 「Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc.」, IV. Provision of Information on Products, Etc. of the 「Public Notice on Provision of Information on Products in Electronic Commerce, Etc.」, Article 16 of the 「Framework Act on Consumers」and Article 8 of the 「Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Consumers」, 34. Transportation of Attachment II. Criteria for the Settlement of Consumer Disputes by Product Item of Criteria for the Settlement of Consumer Disputes
Therefore, the decision has been made as stated above on the above-stated ruling ground.
1. The respondent shall pay KRW 1,000,000 to the petitioner by March 17, 2020.
2. When the respondent fails to pay the amount specified in Paragraph 1, the respondent shall pay loss incurred by delay at an annual rate of 6% with the amount payable from March 18, 2020 to the day it is fully reimbursed.
