Claim for refund on purchase cost of TV with damaged display when delivered 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Claim for refund on purchase cost of TV with damaged display when delivered
Date
2020-11-27
Hit
723
According to Clause 5 of Article 17 of 「Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Commerce Act”)」stipulates that if a dispute arises as to whether the consumer is responsible for the damage to the goods, etc., the mail order distributor shall prove it. The respondent A Co., Ltd. claims that the damage was made due to the negligence of the petitioner during installation, as there were no damage to the external box of the concerned TV. However, it cannot be predicated that the concerned TV has been damaged due to the negligence of the petitioner.
The respondent A Co., Ltd. claims that the damage was made due to the negligence of the petitioner during installation.
A. According to Clause 5 of Article 17 of 「Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Commerce Act”)」stipulates that if a dispute arises as to whether the consumer is responsible for the damage to the goods, etc., the mail order distributor shall prove it. The respondent A Co., Ltd. claims that the damage was made due to the negligence of the petitioner during installation, as there were no damage to the external box of the concerned TV. However, it cannot be predicated that the concerned TV has been damaged due to the negligence of the petitioner, solely based on the finished goods inspection report of the concerned manufacturer, as i) even when there was no damage to the external box, the possibility of being damaged before delivery cannot be excluded, and ii) the finished goods inspection on oooooo (not subject to this settlement) of the manufacturer was conducted as sampling inspection instead of total inspection. Therefore, the claim made by the respondent A Co., Ltd. cannot be accepted.
B. Then, as the damage to the concerned TV cannot be proven as negligence by the petitioner, the concerned TV is deemed to be delivered in a damaged state as per Clause 3 of Article 17 of the Electronic Commerce Act which stipulates that where the content of the goods, etc., are different from what was indicated or advertised, or have been performed differently from the terms of the contract. In addition, given that the petitioner notified the damage on the concerned TV display and requested refund to the respondent A Co., Ltd. on Feb. 21, 2019 (within three (3) months after receiving the concerned TV on Feb. 1, 2019), it is acknowledged as an indisputable fact between both parties. Therefore, the subscription to the purchase agreement on the concerned TV was legitimately withdrawn within the period stipulated under Clause 3 of Article 17 of the 「Electronic Commerce Act」.
C. Still, considering various matters and the intent to settle the dispute amicably, as i) it is unclear as to who damaged the screen of the concerned TV, and ii) the purchase cost of the concerned TV is held by the respondent A Co., Ltd. until now due to the dispute on damaged TV liquid screen, the petitioner shall return the concerned TV to respondent A Co., Ltd. However, the returning cost shall be paid by respondent A Co., Ltd., who in turn shall make KRW 300,000 of refund among the purchasing cost of the concerned TV within three (3) business days upon receiving.
D. As mentioned above, it cannot be considered that the damages to external box and packaging material of the concerned TV occurred during the delivery, and therefore the application for dispute settlement on the respondent B Co., Ltd. (TV delivery service provider) shall not be conducted.
1. The petitioner shall return 1 concerned TV (Byron BR650UHD 65-inch UHD TV Samsung panel Free delivery) to the respondent A Co., Ltd. by Jan. 15, 2020, and the respondent A Co., Ltd. shall pay for the return cost.
2. Respondent A Co., Ltd. shall pay the petitioner KRW 300,000 within three (3) business days after receiving the abovementioned TV from the petitioner.
3. When the respondent fails to pay the amount specified in Paragraph 2, the respondent shall pay loss incurred by delay at an annual rate of 15% from the day which exceeded the abovementioned three (3) business days to the day it is fully reimbursed.
4. On the matter of application for dispute settlement between the petitioner and respondent B Co., Ltd., no settlement shall be made.
