Cheongchul Law Firm (Lead Attorneys: Eom Sang-yun, Lee Young-kyung) represented a large online open market operator (client, defendant) and successfully obtained a complete victory in a damage claim case where it was alleged that the defendant failed to take appropriate action despite illegal activities being conducted in the open market. 

The plaintiff in this case is a 'mail-order seller' selling electronic products online, and the defendant is a 'mail-order intermediary' operating an online open market. The plaintiff claimed that the seller operating in the defendant's open market committed fraud by opening a shopping mall using the plaintiff's business name and inducing consumers to make cash payments.

The plaintiff argued that their reputation was harmed due to the defendant's joint illegal activities and claimed 30,000,100 won for emotional damages, while Cheongchul Law Firm actively countered the plaintiff's claims on behalf of the defendant.

The main issue in this case is the scope of legal responsibility that a mail-order intermediary has regarding the actions of a mail-order seller under the 'Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce' (hereinafter referred to as the “Electronic Commerce Act”).

In this regard, the Supreme Court has ruled that even if information about products infringing on another's trademark rights is posted and transactions for these products occur on an online open market, the fact alone does not exempt the operator of the open market from liability for illegal acts relating to the trademark infringement posts, and if there are circumstances where appropriate measures are neglected leading to easy trademark infringement, the operator is deemed as a joint offender based on inaction (Supreme Court Decision 2012. 12. 4, 2010Ma817).

Cheongchul presented relevant laws and precedents regarding the legal obligations imposed on open market operators, asserting that the defendant took measures to prevent potential fraud (such as including warning phrases to induce cash payments, informing prevention guidelines for fraud victims, specifying measures against violators of terms of service, conducting monitoring of suspicious sellers, etc.) and that prompt sanctions were taken against sellers committing fraudulent acts in this case, thus demonstrating that the defendant did not neglect their obligations.

Additionally, whether adequate evidence for damages was presented also became an issue. The plaintiff argued that the court could assess the amount of damages ex officio, but Cheongchul pointed out that under civil procedure law and precedents, the plaintiff must prove the fact of damage, highlighting that there was insufficient evidence regarding it and that the existence of damage was unclear.

In this case, the court mostly accepted Cheongchul's arguments and dismissed the plaintiff's damage compensation claim entirely. In particular, the case law phrases presented in Cheongchul's written submissions were quoted in the judgment, and a detailed analysis of the actions the defendant was taking as an open market operator was also elaborated in the judgment document. Through this specific factual analysis and legal review process, Cheongchul was able to receive a ruling from the court stating that the defendant's own liability for damages did not arise.

This case reaffirms the scope of the obligations of mail-order intermediaries under the Electronic Commerce Act, and is deemed a reference case for future disputes among parties defined by the Electronic Commerce Act. 

If you require a clear solution for disputes similar to this case, please feel free to contact Cheongchul Law Firm at any time.