1. The Client's Situation
The client operated an online shopping mall and concluded and operated intermediary-transaction agreements with numerous sellers (tenant companies). However, it had internal concerns that, throughout the contracts, the scope of liability, cost burdens, and the party at fault in the event of a dispute could be excessively expanded. In particular, it needed to review in advance the legal and financial risks it would have to bear as a platform operator in connection with compensation for delivery delays and stock-outs, disputes over authenticity, and the handling of refunds and consumer complaints. Accordingly, it requested advice on a structural risk review of the existing tenant agreements and on the possibility of adjustments.
2. Your Legal Team's Advice
Your Legal Team reviewed the agreements as a whole and organized the key issues, focusing on the liability structure that could be excessively attributed to the platform operator despite its position as an intermediary. We examined whether the criteria for fault and the cost-settlement structure operated clearly in matters such as product defects and authenticity disputes, compensation for delivery delays and stock-outs, the handling of customer claims, and the burden of content-production costs and additional expenses. In addition, from the perspective of compliance with relevant statutes-such as the Act on Electronic Commerce, Fair Trade Commission notices, and personal-information protection regulations-we reviewed whether the clause structure was reasonable, and presented opinions to adjust the wording and limit liability for parts where there was room for interpretive dispute.
3. Outcome
The client was able to more clearly define its position as an "intermediary" under the contracts and to establish criteria for reasonably separating and settling the damages and costs arising from causes attributable to the tenant companies. Through this, it secured the effect of substantially lowering the possibility of disputes over the locus of liability when frequent issues-such as delivery delays, stock-outs, authenticity controversies, and customer refund disputes-arose in the future. In addition, by improving the overall completeness of the tenant agreements, it established a contractual foundation that can be used stably even in a structure of repeated transactions with numerous sellers.