Merger Incident Escalates into Large-Scale Legal Battle... Class Action Lawsuits Also Target Financial and E-Commerce Companies

Submission of Complaint as Early as 16th
Over 260 Consumers Willing to Participate
Reviewing Application of 'Gongdong Bulbeophaengwi' (Joint Illegal Act)

In front of the headquarters of 'Merge Point' located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. Photo by Hyunmin Kim

[Asia Economy Reporter Song Seung-seop] Victims of the large-scale refund crisis caused by Merge Point have initiated a class-action lawsuit against financial companies and e-commerce firms. This is to hold accountable not only Merge Plus, the operator of Merge Point, but also the companies involved in the partnership and sales processes. The Merge incident appears to be escalating into a large-scale legal battle.

According to industry sources on the 15th, Kang Dong-won, lead attorney at Law Firm Justice handling the class-action lawsuit for Merge Point victims, is expected to submit a damage compensation complaint as early as the 16th of this month. About 260 consumers have expressed their intention to participate.

The class-action lawsuit will also name financial companies and e-commerce firms as defendants. When selling annual memberships, Merge Plus conducted events linked with Toss, Payco, and Hana Members. Purchasing Merge services such as subscription plans would reward customers with each company's ‘money’ as a reward. E-commerce companies like Tmon, Wemakeprice, 11st, and Gmarket frequently mediated Merge Point sales by offering additional discounts known as ‘deals.’

Attorney Kang stated, "Financial companies and e-commerce firms will also be included (in the complaint)," adding, "We are reviewing specifically which companies to include." He also said, "We are not examining separate legal principles from Merge Plus but are viewing this as a ‘joint tort.’"

Joint tort refers to acts by multiple parties causing harm to others. It is a legal principle under civil law designed to reduce the burden of proof on victims and is established if either ‘intent’ or ‘negligence’ is present. Even without prior conspiracy, if there is a connection or aiding and abetting, partial responsibility is recognized. If it is unclear who caused the damage, all parties are jointly and severally liable for compensation.

Reviewing ‘Joint Tort’... Will Intermediary Brokers Be Held Responsible?

Attorney Kang argued, "Intermediary brokers appear to bear responsibility," and added, "There is a Supreme Court precedent that if there is objective joint action, merely selling and earning profits can establish tort liability."

According to legal circles, joint tort liability can be exempted if one proves their actions were unrelated to the damage. There is also a Supreme Court precedent that reduces compensation liability depending on the evidence. Once the trial begins, the companies named as defendants are expected to argue that they bear no responsibility or negligence.

Financial companies maintain that since their role was an event rather than mediation, it is excessive to consider them negligent in the Merge incident. A financial company official involved in the Merge Point promotion stated, "We did not have a separate marketing partnership with Merge Plus," and added, "It was difficult for financial authorities to detect this in advance, and there were limits to companies verifying or confirming other companies."

E-commerce companies explained that a significant portion of refunds has already been processed and that basic verification was conducted when Merge Point was onboarded. An e-commerce company official said, "The operational department asked Merge Point about the Electronic Financial Transactions Act early in the sales process and heard that they were consulting with financial authorities," emphasizing, "If the contract terms were violated, we would rather sue Merge Plus."