2016 Ghana6014560 Undue gains

Red○ ○

C Aviation Co., Ltd.

August 12, 2016

October 14, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,568,00 won with 20% interest per annum from March 31, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to Article 17(1) of the Act on the Consumer Protection in the Electronic Commerce Transactions, Etc. (hereinafter “Electronic Commerce Act”), a consumer who has entered into a contract for the purchase of goods with a mail order distributor may cancel the relevant contract within seven days from the date on which the document concerning the content of the contract is delivered. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 18(11) of the Electronic Commerce Act, if the consumer is not the same person as a mail order distributor, a person who has received the price of goods, etc., or a person who entered into a contract for mail order with a consumer, he/she shall be jointly and severally liable for the performance of the duty related to the refund of the price of goods, etc. under paragraphs (1) through (7) of Article 17 (1) through cancellation, etc.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the respective statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 8, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have fulfilled the overall purport of the arguments.

3. The Defendant purchased the Defendant’s airline ticket (the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “the instant airline ticket”) on the Internet homepage operated by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) on March 24, 2015; ② the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,568,00 to the Defendant on March 24, 2015; ③ the Plaintiff was diagnosed with the pregnant six weeks on March 25, 2015; and accordingly, the Plaintiff was diagnosed on March 25, 2015.

A may each recognize the fact that it is impossible to use the airline ticket of this case due to pregnancy of this objection and that a request for the refund of the price is made.

C. According to the above facts, the plaintiff lawfully withdrawn the offer of the air ticket of this case within the period stipulated in Article 17(1) of the Electronic Commerce Act from the time when the plaintiff purchased the air ticket of this case from the mail order distributor A, and therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with A to refund the price for the air ticket of this case pursuant to Article 18(11) of the Electronic Commerce Act.

D. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in Article 18(2) of the Electronic Commerce Act from March 31, 2015 to the date on which three business days elapse from the date of the Plaintiff’s subscription filing date, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 1,568,00 won per annum as stipulated in Article 18(2).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that "the circumstances asserted by the plaintiff and the time of the request for the refund are not the grounds for refund and the time of the request for refund stipulated in the terms of the aviation ticket of this case and the defendant's provisions, so the plaintiff cannot pay the price of the airline ticket of this case to the plaintiff."

Even if the plaintiff demanded the return of the price and the demand for refund on the airline tickets of this case as alleged by the defendant, it does not constitute a ground for refund under the terms of contract or the defendant's provision, Article 35 of the Electronic Commerce Act provides that the agreement in violation of the provisions of Articles 17 through 19 of "no disadvantage to the consumer is effective," and therefore the contents of the contract and the defendant's provision that are disadvantageous to the consumer are null and void. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be rejected based on the terms of the contract and the defendant's provision. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-min