Refund Claim for Membership Fee Following Termination of a Contract on Marriage Brokerage Service 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Refund Claim for Membership Fee Following Termination of a Contract on Marriage Brokerage Service
Date
2021-11-19
Hit
754
A. On May 30, 2019, the petitioner in this case concluded a contract on marriage brokerage service (hereinafter “the contract herein”) with the respondent as follows and made payment.
- Contract Price (Membership Fee): KRW 15,000,000
- Contract Period: 36 months (May 20, 2019~May 30, 2022)
- Special Agreement: the membership fee shall be non-refundable after 3 meetings are held.
B. The respondent scheduled 12 meetings between June 15, 2019 and February 29, 2020. Among these, 10 meetings were held. On April 20, 2020, the petitioner requested a termination of the contract herein and a refund.
C. Regarding the service period and the number of meetings, Article 2 of the contract herein stipulates: “the service period is as follows:
□ 3-Dates Membership: ‘B (the respondent)’ offers ‘A (the petitioner)’ a total of 3 dates during the period of N months from MM/DD/YY to MM/DD/YY
□ Unlimited Membership: ‘B’ offers ‘A’ unlimited dates during a period of 36 months from May 30, 2019 to May 30, 2022”
Also, Article 6 stipulates: “Special agreement: the membership fee shall be non-refundable after 3 meetings are held.”
D. Regarding refund policy, Article 3 of the contract herein stipulates:“Refund policy for contract termination upon request of ‘A’ for reasons not attributable to ‘B’:1. Termination before the first meeting arranged by ‘B’: 80% of the membership fee2. Termination after the first meeting arranged by ‘B’:(3-Dates Membership) 80% of the membership fee×(Remaining meetings/Total number of meetings)
(Unlimited Membership) 80% of the membership fee×(Remaining days/Contract period)”
A. The Petitioner(Consumer)
The petitioner contends that the respondent introduced partners who do not meet the desired conditions, which the petitioner specified family background(wealth) and personality as the top priority. The petitioner also claims that meetings were canceled twice on the very day they were supposed to meet due to unilateral circumstances of the partners and that the respondent introduced partners who are only trying to fill the time. On this account, the petitioner requests a termination of the contract herein and a refund of the membership fee.
B. The Respondent(Service Provider)
The respondent contends that it prioritized family background in the process of finding partners and thereby arranged meetings with offspring of high-income professionals, such as professor, dentist, businessman, government official, school principal, head of securities firms, etc. The respondent also argues that 10 among 12 arranged meetings were held upon the petitioner’s approval, and that, in contradiction to the petitioner’s contention on meeting cancellation, a meeting was unilaterally canceled once in the fourth session, and the petitioner himself/herself canceled the twelfth session due to a distance issue because the partner was working in Gangneung at that time. Based on the contract herein, the respondent refutes liability to refund the membership fee since the number of meetings has exceeded three.
A. The petitioner holds the respondent accountable for a termination of the contract herein and a refund on grounds that the respondent introduced partners who do not meet the desired conditions or are only trying to fill the time, and that two meetings were unilaterally canceled. Against this contention, the respondent argues that it prioritized the conditions suggested by the petitioner and thereby arranged meetings with offspring of high-income professionals, and that all meetings were held upon the petitioner’s approval. The respondent also contends that not all meetings were canceled unilaterally, and, indeed, the petitioner himself/herself canceled one meeting due to a distance issue. Based on Article 6 of the contract herein, the respondent refutes liability to refund the membership fee because more than three meetings have been held.
B. As for the termination of the contract, the contract herein corresponds to recurring transactions as stipulated in Article 2(10) of ‘the Act on Door-to-door Sales, Etc.’ Under Article 31 of the same Act, a consumer who signed a contract for recurring transactions may terminate the contract at any time during the contract period. Therefore, it is estimated that the contract herein was legitimately terminated.
C. As for the attributable causes of the termination of the contract herein, ‘Consumer Dispute Settlement Standards (Korea Fair Trade Commission Notification)’ concerning marriage brokerage pursuant to Article 16 of the ‘Framework Act on Consumers’ and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulates business operator’s fault as “a case in which the business operator provides the parties false information on matters that the business operator can clearly and objectively identify (e.g. marriage status, occupation, academic background, medical history, etc.), negligent management (e.g. arranging less than 1 meeting in 3 months), and a case in which the business operator introduces unsuitable partners who do not fit into the desired conditions suggested by the client (limited to objective conditions such as religion, occupation, etc.)” Taking this into account and considering the facts that the respondent seems to have prioritized the partners’ family background in arranging meetings, that the petitioner received the partners’ personal information in advance and thereby approved the arrangement, that the respondent scheduled 12 meetings over nine months and 10 of them were held, that the respondent cannot force a meeting that one party has refused or postponed due to the nature of marriage brokerage, and this seems like a matter that the petitioner can also recognize, and that there is no objective evidence to admit that the respondent was negligent, there is insufficient rationale to attribute the termination of the contract herein to the respondent’s fault. Therefore, it is estimated that the contract herein is terminated due to the petitioner’s circumstances.
D. Regarding the effectiveness of the special agreement, since Article 2 of the contract herein stipulates “a period of 36 months (from May 30, 2019 to May 30, 2022)” and the respondent arranged 12 meetings during this period, the essence of the contract herein can be deemed a fixed-term contract. However, it seems that the respondent attempted to circumvent its duty to refund after the third meeting is held, since it specified in the contract herein that it “offers a total of 3 meetings” in Article 2, and that “the membership fee is non-refundable after 3 meetings are held” in the special agreement. Taking this into account and considering the fact that the special agreement imposes consumers an excessive cost burden compared with that guided by ‘Consumer Dispute Settlement Standards,’ it is proper to determine that the special agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 31(1) and 15 of ‘the Act on Door-to-door Sales, Etc.’ and Article 9(4) of ‘the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.’
E. Regarding the effectiveness of the clause concerning refund, Article 3 of the contract herein stipulates that “the membership fee will be refunded pursuant to ‘Consumer Dispute Settlement Standards (Marriage Brokerage, Korea Fair Trade Commission Notification)’ upon termination,” followed by a detailed provisions that correspond to the Standard thereof. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above-mentioned Article is particularly disadvantageous to consumers. Meanwhile, Article 16 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions stipulates that “Where the whole or any part of terms or conditions fails to constitute the content of a contract under Article 3(4) or is null and void under Articles 6 through 14, the contract shall remain effective with only the remaining portion of the terms and conditions: Provided, That where it is impossible to achieve the objective of the contract with only the effective parts or such effective parts are unreasonably unfavorable to one party, the relevant contract shall be null and void.” Based on these facts, it is estimated that Article 3 remains effective even if Article 6 becomes null and void.
F. Such being the case, setting the total amount of refund that the respondent should return to the petitioner at KRW 8,422,971 {KRW 15,000,000？×？80%？×？(770 days/1,097 days)} is thought to be reasonable in consideration of the following: the membership fee of the contract herein is KRW 15,000,000; the essence of the contract herein can be deemed a fixed-term contract (contract period of 1097 days) since the contract herein stipulates “a period of 36 months (May 30, 2019~May 31, 2022)” and the respondent arranged 12 meetings during this period, and Article 5(2) of the ‘Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions’ stipulates: “if the meaning of terms and conditions is not clear, it shall be construed in favor of customers;” 770 days (April 21, 2020~May 30, 2022) remain after termination of the contract herein; termination of the contract herein is attributable to the petitioner’s circumstances; Article 3 of the contract herein stipulates that, if the petitioner requests contract termination that is not attributable to the respondent, the respondent shall refund 80% of the membership fee for the remaining days. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the respondent to refund KRW 8,422,971 {KRW 15,000,000？×？80%？×？(770 days/1,097 days)} to the petitioner.
G. In conclusion, the respondent shall refund KRW 8,422,971 to the petitioner until June 7, 2021. If the respondent delays the payment thereof, an annual interest of 6% shall accrue against the unpaid balance from June 8, 2021 until the date of full payment as a compensation for the loss incurred by the delay.
1. The respondent shall refund KRW 8,422,971 to the petitioner until June 7, 2021.
2. If the respondent delays the payment thereof, an annual interest of 6% shall accrue against the unpaid balance from June 8, 2021 until the date of full payment as a compensation for the loss incurred by the delay.
