The Refund Deadline That Moves
You are reading a Korean online shopping notice for a class assignment. The notice says: "교환 및 환불은 상품 수령일로부터 7일 이내에 신청하실 수 있습니다. 단, 표시광고와 다른 상품이 배송된 경우에는 수령일로부터 30일 이내에 신청 가능합니다." Below it, a smaller line reads: "세일 상품은 단순 변심에 의한 교환·환불이 불가하며, 불량 상품은 예외입니다." A classmate bought a jacket in the sale, received it on 3 March, and found on 5 March that the colour was different from the photo on the product page. On 12 March the classmate asks you whether a refund is still possible. The notice gives no phone number, and the classmate has kept the tags on the jacket but has already thrown away the outer packaging.
1. Is the classmate's refund request on 12 March likely to succeed? Identify which rule applies and explain why the sale-item exclusion does not settle the question.
Read the worked answer
The request is likely to succeed, but not because of the ordinary 7-day rule.
Step 1 - Classify the complaint. The classmate is not claiming 단순 변심 (a simple change of mind). The complaint is that the colour differs from the photo on the product page. That falls under 표시광고와 다른 상품 - a product that differs from its display/advertising. This is a defect-type ground, not a change-of-mind ground.
Step 2 - Apply the correct deadline. The 7-day period runs from 수령일 (3 March) and would expire on 10 March, so a 12 March request would be late under the general rule. However, the notice provides a separate 30-day window for 표시광고와 다른 상품. Counting from 3 March, that window closes on 2 April. The 12 March request is well inside it.
Step 3 - Deal with the sale-item line. The exclusion says 세일 상품 cannot be exchanged or refunded for 단순 변심, and explicitly carves out 불량 상품. Because the classmate's ground is a mismatch with the advertised description rather than a change of mind, the exclusion does not apply on its own terms. The exception for defective goods reinforces this.
Conclusion: The refund is likely available under the 30-day mismatch rule. The discarded outer packaging is a practical obstacle but does not by itself remove the right, since the tags remain and the defect is in the product's description.
2. The classmate says: "Then I can wait until 1 April to apply, since I have 30 days." What is wrong with this reasoning, and what should the classmate do?
Read the worked answer
Two things are wrong.
1. The 30-day window is not a safe waiting period. The 30-day period is the outer limit for applying, not a guaranteed holding period. The notice conditions the longer window on the product being 표시광고와 다른 상품. If the seller disputes that characterisation - for example, by arguing the photo was illustrative or that screen colour varies - the classmate's fallback is the 7-day rule, which already expired on 10 March. Waiting until 1 April leaves no fallback.
2. Evidence decays with time. The classmate has kept the tags but discarded the outer packaging. Delay risks further loss of the packaging and of the ability to show the jacket's condition as received. A prompt application preserves both the stronger claim and the physical evidence.
What to do: Apply now, in writing, stating the ground explicitly as 표시광고와 다른 상품 (colour mismatch with the product page), not as a change of mind. Include the receipt date (3 March), a description of the discrepancy, and photographs of the jacket beside the product-page image. Keep the tags attached and do not wear the jacket. Request written confirmation of the application date, because that date is what determines whether the deadline was met.