Hello, this is attorney Lee Young-kyung at Cheongchul Law Firm.

On July 19, 2026, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) announced that it had required 15 clinic-level medical institutions using prepaid treatment terms and conditions for dermatological and aesthetic procedures to voluntarily correct six types of unfair contract clauses: restricting consumers' right to cancel or terminate, excessive liquidated damages, exclusion of the operator's statutory liability, prohibition of litigation, restrictions on assigning prepaid treatment rights, and unilateral changes to the content of performance. This action carries highly important implications for the terms-and-conditions practice of aesthetic medical clinics such as dermatology and plastic surgery clinics, in connection with the increasingly widespread "prepaid treatment" service (paying for a package of procedures in advance and using it thereafter).

This column is based on the KFTC press release dated July 19, 2026, and the names of the individual clinics have been anonymized as Clinic A, B, C, and so forth.

The corrections at a glance – all six types of unfair contract clauses voluntarily corrected

In prepaid treatment terms for dermatological and aesthetic procedures, clauses that effectively block a consumer's right to cancel or terminate, impose excessive penalties, broadly exclude the operator's statutory liability, prohibit consumers from filing suit or raising objections, restrict the free assignment of prepaid treatment rights, or allow the operator to unilaterally decide the content of performance such as changing the designated doctor may be found void as violating Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 respectively of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (the "Terms and Conditions Act"). All 15 clinics under review agreed to voluntary correction, and the core direction of the corrections can be summarized as: "refund of the balance after deducting a 10% penalty in line with the Consumer Dispute Resolution Criteria," "deletion of unfair exemption, litigation-prohibition and assignment-restriction clauses," and "refund available where the consumer does not consent to a substitute medical practitioner."

● Subject of review: 15 dermatology and aesthetic procedure clinics (top-ranked in Korea Consumer Agency damage relief filings in 2023–2024)

● Types corrected: six (① restriction of cancellation/termination / ② excessive penalties / ③ exclusion of liability / ④ prohibition of litigation / ⑤ restriction on assignment / ⑥ unilateral change of performance)

● Applicable provisions: Terms and Conditions Act Articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14

● Future plans: reviewing the establishment of standard terms for the aesthetic medical sector and continuing inspections of unfair terms in similar fields

1. Background and subject of the review

Recently, centering on clinic-level medical institutions offering aesthetic procedures such as dermatology and plastic surgery clinics, "prepaid treatment" services — under which packages of procedures are composed and treatment fees are paid in advance — have been expanding. Consumers actively use them because they can receive various discounts through "event discount prices" and "special package offers," but given the nature of a service in which a substantial amount is paid up front, the structure carries a high risk of consumer complaints and harm where a hospital restricts or avoids refunds when a consumer later requests mid-term termination for personal reasons.

Accordingly, the KFTC selected the top 15 clinics (Clinics A through O, the "clinics under review") by Korea Consumer Agency damage relief filings over the last two years (2023–2024) and reviewed their prepaid treatment terms as a whole. As a result, six types of unfair contract clauses were identified and all of the operators agreed to voluntary correction.

2. The six types of unfair clauses and the direction of correction

Type ① Clauses restricting cancellation or termination (13 clinics) – violation of Article 9 of the Terms and Conditions Act

The terms of the clinics under review contained clauses to the effect that "subjective dissatisfaction or discomfort with the result of a procedure is not a ground for refund," "no refund is available once two months have passed from the contract date," and "procedures and refunds are unavailable after the validity period has expired." The KFTC found that such clauses completely prohibit refunds for prepaid treatment services, thereby restricting the customer's statutory right to cancel or terminate and producing the same effect as claiming the entire unused treatment fee as a penalty; they therefore constitute clauses imposing an excessive restitution burden on the customer upon cancellation or termination (Article 9 of the Terms and Conditions Act) and are void.

Direction of correction: delete clauses restricting refunds on grounds such as a simple change of mind or subjective dissatisfaction, the lapse of a specified period (30 days, two months, etc.), or membership/event products, and amend them so that upon mid-term termination the balance is refunded after settling the cost of procedures already performed and a 10% penalty in line with the Consumer Dispute Resolution Criteria.

Type ② Clauses providing excessive liquidated damages (2 clinics) – violation of Article 8 of the Terms and Conditions Act

The terms of the clinics under review contained clauses to the effect that "upon refund of remaining procedures, a penalty of 20% of the paid amount and (number of procedures × standard price) shall be deducted" and "after a procedure has commenced, a 30% penalty on the total paid amount shall apply, followed by deduction of the standard price for the number of procedures before refund." The KFTC found that clauses imposing penalties amounting to 20–30% of the paid amount, beyond the level needed to compensate the operator's actual loss from termination, unfairly and excessively burden the consumer's damages obligation (Article 8 of the Terms and Conditions Act) and are void.

Direction of correction: delete the 20% and 30% penalty clauses and amend them so that the balance is refunded after deducting a 10% penalty in line with the Consumer Dispute Resolution Criteria.

Type ③ Clauses excluding the operator's statutory liability (7 clinics) – violation of Article 7 of the Terms and Conditions Act

The terms of the clinics under review contained clauses to the effect that "after receiving a refund, the customer shall not pursue any civil or criminal legal liability against the hospital," "in the event of other problems after a procedure, the customer shall not request a refund or pursue civil or criminal liability," and "all damages are exempted where performance becomes impossible due to force majeure." The KFTC found that such clauses exclude the operator's statutory liability or shift responsibility for damage onto the customer without any regard to the scope of liability arising from serious breaches of the duty of care and negligence by medical staff and employees (Article 7 of the Terms and Conditions Act) and are void.

Direction of correction: delete the unfair exemption clauses, or amend them so that the operator compensates damage arising from causes attributable to the operator, such as intent or negligence.

Type ④ Clauses prohibiting litigation (10 clinics) – violation of Article 14 of the Terms and Conditions Act

The terms of the clinics under review contained clauses to the effect that "the customer shall not write defamatory posts in mass media or raise civil or criminal objections regarding matters arising from refusal to be photographed before and after a procedure" and "the customer shall not raise any further legal issues against the hospital in the future." The KFTC found that such clauses restrict consumers from seeking remedies even where they experience side effects from a procedure, and therefore constitute litigation-prohibition clauses unfairly disadvantageous to the customer (Article 14 of the Terms and Conditions Act) and are void.

Direction of correction: delete wording prohibiting litigation or objections, or amend it so that the legitimate exercise of rights under the relevant statutes is not restricted.

Type ⑤ Clauses restricting assignment of prepaid treatment rights (10 clinics) – violation of Article 11 of the Terms and Conditions Act

The terms of the clinics under review contained clauses to the effect that "the right to receive a procedure belongs only to the customer personally and may not be assigned or sold," "paid reserve points may not be assigned to another person," and "a package program may be assigned only to one designated family member." The KFTC found that, since the assignment and acquisition of claims under the Civil Act is in principle free and a prepaid treatment right constitutes a claim for medical services to be provided in the future (a monetary claim in nature), assignment should in principle be freely permitted; completely prohibiting assignment or limiting it to one family member unfairly restricts the customer's right to enter into contracts with third parties (Article 11 of the Terms and Conditions Act) and is void.

Direction of correction: delete the clauses prohibiting assignment and sale so that customers may freely assign their rights to third parties.

Type ⑥ Clauses allowing the operator to unilaterally decide or change the content of performance (1 clinic) – violation of Article 10 of the Terms and Conditions Act

The terms of the clinic under review contained clauses to the effect that "the resignation of the designated doctor shall not be a ground for refund, and an experienced director shall be connected as a substitute" and "the customer agrees that changes to the procedure schedule due to the designated doctor's resignation, closure of practice, or leave of absence shall not constitute a ground for refund." The KFTC found that, even where a hospital may designate a substitute doctor when the designated doctor can no longer provide treatment, a refund should be available if the customer does not consent; a clause under which the operator unilaterally determines the substitute medical staff and makes refunds impossible therefore unilaterally decides or changes the content of performance without substantial grounds (Article 10 of the Terms and Conditions Act) and is void.

Direction of correction: amend the terms so that where the customer does not consent to the assignment of substitute medical staff upon the designated doctor's resignation, a refund is available under the refund policy.

3. Summary of the applicable law – six articles of the Terms and Conditions Act

4. Self-inspection checklist for staff at aesthetic clinics such as dermatology and plastic surgery clinics

5. Cheongchul Law Firm's advisory on terms and advertising compliance for dermatology and plastic surgery clinics

Cheongchul Law Firm has experience advising aesthetic medical institutions — including dermatology, plastic surgery, dental, and obstetrics and gynecology clinics — across the multi-layered regulatory fields relating to hospital operations, such as the Terms and Conditions Act, the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, the Medical Service Act, and the Consumer Dispute Resolution Criteria.

As package procedure products such as prepaid treatment expand, related contract disputes are also increasing, and this KFTC action is highly likely to extend to inspections and corrections of terms across the aesthetic medical sector as a whole. If you need a prior legal review of prepaid treatment terms, procedure consent forms, or refund policies, or if you have received notice of a KFTC review of your terms, please feel free to contact Cheongchul Law Firm.