Examining 'Joint Illegal Acts'... Merge Victims File Class Action Lawsuit Against Financial and E-commerce Companies (Comprehensive)

Submission of Complaint as Early as 16th
Over 260 Consumers Willing to Participate
Reviewing Application of 'Gongdong Bulbeophaengwi' (Joint Illegal Act)

The headquarters of 'Merge Point' located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim

[Asia Economy Reporter Song Seung-seop] Victims of the massive refund crisis caused by Merge Point have initiated a class-action lawsuit against financial companies and e-commerce firms. This is to hold accountable not only Merge Plus, the operator of Merge Point, but also the companies involved in the incident for their responsibilities in the partnership and sales processes. As companies that sought profit generation and expansion of scale through the sale of Merge Point also face court, the Merge incident appears to be escalating into a large-scale legal battle.

According to industry sources on the 15th, Kang Dong-won, lead attorney at Law Firm Justice handling the class-action lawsuit for Merge Point victims, is expected to submit a complaint for damages as early as the 16th of this month. About 260 consumers have expressed their intention to participate.

The class-action lawsuit will also name financial companies and e-commerce firms as defendants. When selling annual memberships, Merge Plus held events linked with Toss, Payco, and Hana Members. Purchasing Merge services such as subscription plans rewarded customers with each company's ‘money’ as a reward. E-commerce companies like Tmon, Wemakeprice, 11st, and Gmarket frequently mediated Merge Point sales by offering additional discounts known as ‘deals.’

Attorney Kang stated, “It is clear that Merge Plus was at fault,” adding, “Financial companies and e-commerce firms will also be included in the complaint.” However, he noted, “We are reviewing exactly which companies to include,” and explained, “We are considering this not as separate legal principles from Merge Plus but as ‘joint tortious acts.’” If joint tortious liability is established, it can prevent situations where even after winning against Merge Plus, victims cannot recover their money.

Joint tortious acts refer to actions by multiple parties causing damage to others. It is a legal principle under civil law designed to reduce the burden of proof on victims and is established if either ‘intent’ or ‘negligence’ is present. Even without prior conspiracy, if there is relevance or aiding and abetting, partial responsibility is recognized. If it is unclear who caused the damage, each party is jointly and severally liable for compensation.

Attorney Kang argued, “Intermediaries in telecommunications appear to bear responsibility,” and “There is a Supreme Court precedent that if they merely sold and earned profits without more, and there is objective joint action, tort liability is established.”

Financial and E-commerce Firms: "Individual Companies Have Limits in Verifying Merge Plus"

A notice is posted at the headquarters of 'Merge Point' in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kim Hyun-min

According to legal circles, joint tortious liability can be exempted if a party proves that their actions are unrelated to the damage. There are also Supreme Court precedents that reduce compensation liability depending on the evidence. Once the trial begins, the companies named as defendants are expected to argue that they bear no responsibility or fault.

Financial companies argue that since their role was an event rather than mediation, it is excessive to consider them negligent in the Merge incident. A financial company official involved in the Merge Point promotion said, “We did not have a separate marketing partnership with Merge Plus,” and added, “Financial authorities also found it difficult to detect this in advance, and companies had limits in verifying or confirming other companies.”

E-commerce firms explained that a significant portion of refunds has already been processed and that basic verification was conducted when Merge Point was listed. An e-commerce company official said, “The operational department asked Merge Point about the Electronic Financial Transactions Act early in the sales process and heard that they were in consultation with financial authorities,” emphasizing, “If the contract terms were violated, we would rather sue Merge Plus.”

Experts point out that aside from the legal responsibility in the Merge incident, the background of the large-scale litigation includes ‘intensified competition’ and ‘lack of verification.’ This means that in a fiercely competitive environment among industries, companies eager to expand their scale hastily sold Merge Point, which increased the damage.

A financial industry insider analyzed, “It is difficult and time-consuming to distinguish whether a new type of service is an innovation or an illegal act exploiting regulatory loopholes,” adding, “Related companies should have approached this cautiously but were drawn to contracts by the number of Merge Plus’s affiliated merchants and subscribers.” He further explained, “Criticism has been raised that related companies were negligent in verification, and victims who trusted partner and sales companies and purchased points were produced, contributing to this incident.”

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