Refund Claim for an Overseas Ordered TV Canceled during Delivery 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Refund Claim for an Overseas Ordered TV Canceled during Delivery
Date
2021-10-29
Hit
700
The petitioner in this case purchased a TV (Model: 86NANO90UNA, KRW 3,956,000, hereinafter “the product in this case”) from the Respondent 1 on the website of Respondent 2. On September 1, 2020, the petitioner found explicit phrasing on the purchase webpage indicating that 15~18% of [import duties and VAT] will be added to the total payment and thereby requested a cancellation. Respondent 1 replied that since the product herein has been shipped out on September 2, a return fee of USD 600 will be incurred. The petitioner then requested for a cancellation without penalty.
A. The Petitioner (Consumer)
ㅇ The petitioner contends that the information about import duties was not indicated on the heading of the purchase webpage, and that on September 1, 2020, he/she found explicit phrasing in fine print in the corner of the webpage indicating an import duty of 15~18% shall be added to the total payment.
ㅇ The petitioner contends that Respondent 1 has an obligation to refund without charging an additional fee since he/she bought the product herein based on a promotion that exempts customer from a return cost. The petitioner inquired Respondent 1 to verify the product herein was advertised on a promotion at the time of the transaction, but did not receive any response on this matter.
ㅇ According to the petitioner, import duties and VAT incur an additional cost of KRW 700,000, rendering the total cost of the product herein of about KRW 500,000 more expensive than those of competitors. On this account, the petitioner contends that Respondent 1 attempted to mislead customers about the price of the product herein by indicating the price excluding taxes to induce purchase.
B. The Respondents
1) Respondent 1 (Mail-order Distributor)
ㅇ Respondent 1 contends that the petitioner seems to have purchased the product herein without noticing the fine print about import duties and VAT written on the website and should have made inquiries about additional charges if it was crucial to the purchase thereof. However, because the petitioner failed to do so, Respondent 1 Respondent 1 refutes being liable for the return fee.
ㅇ Respondent 1 explains that he/she placed an order to the overseas seller immediately after the petitioner made the purchase, and the product herein was handled for shipping on the same day. The overseas seller thus demanded USD 570 for the return due to having second thoughts. Accordingly, Respondent 1 contends that the total return fee amounts to USD 600, including USD 30 for handling at the logistics center.
2) Respondent 2 (Mail-order Broker)
Respondent 2 received payment of the product herein. However, Respondent 2 contends that, as a mail-order broker, it cannot obligate Respondent 1 to accept the petitioner’s request.
1. The Legal Character of this Case
The purchase contract herein is about Respondent 1 providing information about goods that can be purchased abroad and importing and selling the product herein in the name of the petitioner [upon his/her request]. Therefore, this contract corresponds to the category of [‘Shopping mall-type Proxy Purchase’ under ‘Standard Terms and Conditions for Overseas Purchase Contracts’] Also, since the contract was concluded via [electronic commerce], ‘the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce’ is warranted in this case.
2. The Basis for Cancellation
It is verified that Respondent 1 has indicated that an import duty of “15~18% and VAT need to be paid individually (final amount of taxes may vary depending on the exchange rate and the purchase amount)” on the purchase webpage of the product herein. Thus, it is not determined that cancellation is based on Article 17(3) of the same Act, since the product herein is not considered to be different from the contents of the advertisement or that of the contract. Therefore, it is proper to regard the cancellation of the contract herein to be based on Article 17(1) of the same Act, wherein the petitioner purchased the product herein without noticing the taxation policy written in fine print on the purchase webpage.
Under Article 17(1) of the same Act, a customer who has concluded a contract with a mail order distributor on the purchase of goods may cancel the contract within seven (7) days from the date of obtaining a document detailing the contents of the contract, delivery date of goods, or date on which the supply of the goods began. As the product herein was handled for shipping after the petitioner concluded the contract on August 27, 2020, and the petitioner presented his/her intent to cancel on September 1, 2020, it is estimated that the cancellation was legitimately requested within the prescribed time period.
3. The Range of Refund Amount
The return of the product herein is not a problem as the petitioner requested cancellation before the product herein was delivered, and only the issue of a refund remains. Under Article 18(9) of the same Act, the petitioner shall bear the expenses for returning goods. Therefore, it is proper that Respondent 1 deduct the return fee and refund the rest of the amount to the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the petitioner submitted a picture presenting the purchase webpage of the product herein that says, “Full exemption without payment! And enjoy free returns.” If this explicit promotion existed at the time of the purchase, it would be appropriate to determine that there was a special agreement (“the petitioner shall not bear the return cost”) between the contracting parties. However, it is difficult to discern whether the presented picture corresponds to the condition of the contract herein, hence it is not determined that the special agreement existed at the time of this purchase. Furthermore, under Article 15(1) of the ‘Standard Terms and Conditions for Overseas Purchase (Shopping mall-type Proxy Purchase) Contracts’ (Standard Terms and Conditions No. 10076, enacted October 14, 2016, Korea Fair Trade Commission), it is proper that the petitioner bears the expenses of returning the goods. Thus, considering the facts that Respondent 1 charged USD 600 based on the invoice indicating USD 570 demanded by the local seller and USD 30 for handling at the logistics center, and that a considerable shipping fee will be incurred as the weight of the product herein exceeds 50kg, the return fee charged to the petitioner is not entirely improper. However, it is appropriate to limit the return cost to USD 180, or 30% of the purchase amount, considering that the actual return cost may differ from that written on the invoice.
1. Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 shall jointly refund KRW 3,752,276 to the petitioner by November 2, 2021.
2. If the respondents delay payment under Paragraph 1, an interest rate of 15% shall accrue against the unpaid balance from November 3, 2021 until the date of full payment.
