Customer Demanding Refund for 'Head Injury'... Garosugil Hair Salon Files Complaint [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

Fine of 1 Million Won Summary Order Rejected, Formal Trial Requested
Court: "Not an Excessive Demand," Customer Acquitted

A customer who received a hair dyeing service demanded a refund from the hair salon and was prosecuted for attempted extortion but was acquitted in the first trial. /The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Pixabay]

On February 24th last year, Ms. A (41, female) visited a hair salon in Garosugil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, operated by Mr. B. She paid a total of 180,000 KRW for a 150,000 KRW "coloring package" treatment plus an additional fee for hair length.

However, Ms. A was dissatisfied with the result. She requested a refund on the grounds that "the treatment was subpar compared to the advertisement, and the additional fee was not initially disclosed," but only received a refund of 30,000 KRW for the hair length surcharge.

A few days later, Ms. A urgently visited a nearby neighborhood hair salon because her hair had clumped together like a ball while drying it at home. After trimming some parts and receiving a clinic treatment, she was charged 100,000 KRW. The local salon owner said, "The hair condition is so dry and rough that it is hard to say it had received a clinic treatment."

Ms. A called Mr. B's hair salon 25 times over three days, but the salon did not answer. When Ms. A called with caller ID blocked, she was finally able to speak. Mr. B's side argued, "How do you know the damage was caused by the dye used here?" and "Where is the proof that if we pay this time, you won't keep demanding compensation?" They maintained that no refund would be given except for additional treatments.

Ms. A then issued the following warning:

"If you do not provide a full refund, I will report this to the Consumer Protection Agency. If you continue to operate like this, I will have no choice but to post about it on my blog and the internet (...) You will realize the impact."

Subsequently, the hair salon filed a complaint against Ms. A. After a summary order imposing a fine of 1,000,000 KRW was issued, Ms. A appealed and requested a formal trial. A summary order is when a prosecutor requests a fine or penalty based on written review only, and the court issues a sentence without a formal trial by reviewing documents.

In court, the prosecutor stated, "The defendant showed threatening behavior and tried to get refunds from frightened victims, but failed as the victims did not comply," and requested a fine of 1,000,000 KRW. Ms. A and her lawyer countered, "The refund request was legitimate, and there was no excessive threat."

According to the court on the 7th, Judge Lee Kyung-rin of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 22 recently acquitted Ms. A, ruling that she was not guilty. The judge determined that Ms. A's statements were merely somewhat exaggerated expressions of her intention to exercise her rights as a consumer.

The judge stated, "The defendant only demanded a refund after receiving additional clinic treatment at another salon due to hair damage, and after communicating with the victims. Based on the hair condition and the local salon owner's opinion, she believed the treatment caused damage to her hair." "She thought it appropriate to resolve the dispute by receiving a refund equivalent to the treatment cost within reasonable limits, so she requested a refund. Even if negligence in the treatment is recognized, the requested amount does not appear excessive."

The judge added, "Although the defendant's words could have caused the victims to feel intimidated and disrupted business, considering the circumstances leading to the statements and the victims' responses, it cannot be concluded that the defendant's actions exceeded socially acceptable means or scope of exercising rights."