誘導 to unfavorable contracts under the pretext of reducing communication costs... Sales outlets held liable for compensation

Decision of the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee of the Korea Consumer Agency

[Asia Economy Reporter Lim Chun-han] # Mr. A returned his mobile phone, which he had used for 11 months, and exchanged it for a new phone of the same model at a sales store of Telecom Company A in October last year after hearing an explanation that his communication fees would be reduced. At that time, Mr. A received 50,000 won as a gift. A few days later, he found out that he was being charged for the installments of both the returned device and the new device, and demanded compensation for the installments of the new device. However, the sales store explained that the installments for the new device were also charged and refused compensation, stating that they paid 50,000 won from the proceeds of selling the returned device as a used item.

Similarly, Mr. B returned his mobile phone, which he had used for about 7 months, and exchanged it for a new device of the same model at another sales store of the same telecom company around May last year after hearing an explanation that his billed amount would be reduced to the 70,000 won range. The existing phone had about 700,000 won remaining in installments, which Mr. B paid off entirely via credit card installments. However, the following month, he was billed over 100,000 won including the installments for the new device. Mr. B protested to the sales store and received 362,010 won for the amount exceeding the promised billed amount and the remaining installments of the returned phone. Still, since he had to bear both the remaining installments of the returned device and the installments of the new device simultaneously, he demanded additional compensation but was refused, leading him to apply for mediation with the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee.

On the 1st, the Consumer Dispute Mediation Committee announced that regarding the cases of Mr. A and Mr. B, the sales stores demanded excessively disadvantageous contracts and decided that a substantial amount equivalent to the exchange value of the returned devices should be compensated to the consumers.

The telecom company argued that there was no problem since the installment contract details for the new device were specified in the contract, and the consumer confirmed and signed these details. However, the Mediation Committee judged that the devices used by Mr. A and Mr. B were subject to an additional service that repays the remaining installments of the returned device if replaced after two years of use, and that changing to the same model while bearing expensive additional installments was not considered a typical transaction.

Furthermore, considering that the existing devices had been used for less than a year and were returned to the sales stores, the Committee decided that a substantial amount equivalent to the exchange value of the returned devices should be compensated to the consumers. However, recognizing that consumers also had some fault for not clearly confirming the contract details, the responsibility of each sales store was limited to 70%. The Committee explained, "This mediation decision is significant in confirming that the telecom industry has a duty to thoroughly notify contract details, rather than blaming only consumers who did not check the contract when disputes arise without sufficient explanation."

The Committee urged consumers to verify before signing contracts when purchasing devices through sales stores and subscribing to mobile communication services whether the verbally provided information is included in the contract, whether there are remaining installments or cancellation penalties for existing devices, and whether the contract terms are being fulfilled through billing statements.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.