The case holding that the settlement agency's termination of a contract with the content provider company on the ground that the content provider who operates the Internet site violated the Act on the Consumer Protection in the Electronic Commerce Transactions, Etc. is lawful.

Article 21(1) of the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc.

Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheonger, Attorneys Gyeong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Roon, Attorneys Lee Il-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na95552 decided July 4, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds for termination of the contract regarding civil petition treatment

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged that Article 9 of the contract of this case provides that "in the case of the user Crecilty (civil petition) caused after the settlement system, the plaintiff and the defendant are responsible for the cause attributable to them, and mutually cooperate to the maximum extent possible to solve the problem." Article 10 of the contract of this case provides that "if the user requests the cancellation and refund of the case approved by using the wire-line settlement system, the right of cancellation and refund shall be vested in the plaintiff." The principal contents of the civil petition against the Internet site operated by the plaintiff are related to pay members without consent, pay members, failure to notify the payment of the fee members, membership termination, and automatic settlement, and the cancellation and refund of the user's fee members, and on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the court below, the complaints against the Internet site operated by the plaintiff are responsible for resolving them due to the plaintiff's cause attributable to the plaintiff, and since the plaintiff did not comply with the contract of this case, the contract of this case was terminated by the plaintiff.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as legitimate.

The court below did not err in violating the rules of evidence or interpreting the contract, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s violation of Article 21 of the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Commerce Act”).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below emphasized that the Plaintiff’s act of entering the Internet site of this case, which requires a paid member to take part in the act of free advertising, and puts much emphasis on the phrase “free experience” and “fals” on the website of this case, while indicating the phrase “fals,” “fals, 2,000 won, which are automatically converted to regular members after seven days’ free experience, is imposed” at the bottom of the screen that makes it difficult for the Plaintiff to become aware of such contents, leading the Plaintiff to participate in e-commerce without proper understanding, and determined that the Plaintiff’s act of entering the Internet site of this case’s automatic settlement to make it difficult for the Plaintiff to accurately recognize that the Plaintiff’s act of withdrawing from the Internet site of this case constitutes a violation of the Electronic Commerce Act or an act of making it difficult for the Plaintiff to accurately inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff’s act of sending text messages to the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s act of making settlement or cancellation, and thus, it did not appear that it constitutes the Plaintiff’s act of advertising or termination.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant statutes and the records, we affirm the lower court’s fact-finding and determination as justifiable.

The court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the Electronic Commerce Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the omission of judgment

Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in light of the records, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal that the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is liable for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence and that the responsibility for resolving this is the Plaintiff. Thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal that the lower court omitted its judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)