(한국글로벌뉴스 -박소연 기자)  

A Consultation Case

The case where the online seller imposes the return costs on the customer

Q. I purchased a vacuum cleaner from an online shopping mall. The advertisement said that its suction power is so high that it will even suck golf balls up. When I actually used it, the

performance was so bad that it wasn’t even able to take in watermelon seeds properly. Therefore,

I requested a return within 2 weeks but was informed that I would have to return it at my own

expense instead of at the seller’s expense. Who should be responsible for the cost of the return?

A. The cost for return due to false or exaggerated advertisement should be borne by the seller. If you are able to provide proof of false description by the online shopping mall, based on that, it would be possible to make a return and receive a refund from the seller. According to Article 17 (Rescission of Purchase, etc.) Section 3 of the Act on Online Consumer Protection in

E-Commerce Transactions, when the contents of goods differ from the displayed advertisements or when the terms were carried out in deviation from the contract, the purchase may be rescinded within 3 months from the date of receiving the goods in question or within 30 days from the date the consumer discovered or should have discovered the fact, the seller [1] should be borne the cost of return. However, if a consumer rescinds the purchase within 7 days with no faults from the

seller, then the consumer [2] should be borne the cost of return. (citation of Damage Relief Case from the Korea Consumer Agency)

<참고; 홈페이지 오른쪽 위의 나라별 번역기를 이용 바랍니다.>

Chulok Son

President of Green Consumer Network Gyeonggi Branch

shell bear→should borne