Case of Resolving an Education-Service Refund Dispute Through Application of the Door-to-Door Sales Act

The client was an education service provider operating training programs for the acquisition of certifications, and it faced a dispute with a consumer over the refund of tuition fees. The terms and conditions contained a clause stating "no refund once one-half of the total training period has elapsed," but the consumer requested termination in the middle of the contract and applied to the Korea Consumer Agency for dispute mediation. The Consumer Agency proposed a mediation plan to refund the remaining amount after deducting a penalty and the portion of classes already taken, and whether to accept this became the issue.

The core issues in this case were whether the transaction constituted a "continuing transaction" under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. (the Door-to-Door Sales Act), and whether the no-refund clause was effective.

The analysis found that, because the training contract continuously provided services for one month or more and a refund-restriction clause existed, it constituted a "continuing transaction" to which Articles 31 and 32 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act apply.

In addition, the clause "no refund once more than one-half of the total training period has elapsed" entirely prohibited refunds even though a substantial number of classes remained, placing the consumer at a marked disadvantage, and was therefore highly likely to be judged void under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions and the Door-to-Door Sales Act. Accordingly, on the basis of precedents and Fair Trade Commission decisions, Your Legal Team confirmed that the Consumer Agency's mediation plan was consistent with the purpose of the statutes, and recommended a refund of the remaining amount after deducting only the penalty (10% of the total) and the portion of classes already taken.

In accordance with the recommendation, the client accepted the mediation plan and carried out the refund, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation proceedings and bringing the dispute to a swift conclusion. Furthermore, taking this case as an opportunity, the client revised its refund regulations to a "10% penalty of the total contract amount plus refund after deducting the portion of classes already taken" approach, establishing a basis for preventing similar disputes in the future.

This case is significant in that it clarified the lawful limits of refund terms in education service contracts and presented a practical solution consistent with statutory and precedent-based standards.