Inconsistent Tuition Refund Policies Raise Concerns Over Drone Certification Disputes Between Consumers and Training Institutions

Korea Consumer Agency Investigates Transaction Terms
"Careful Review and Cautious Payment Recommended When Signing Contracts"

As unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, are increasingly used not only as a hobby but also across various industries, the number of people seeking to obtain related certifications has risen significantly. However, disputes between consumers and related training institutions continue to occur due to unclear transaction terms in the training process, highlighting the need for caution.

Drone education (Photo unrelated to the article content)

On June 5, the Korea Consumer Agency announced that, after investigating the transaction terms of drone training institutions, it found that the absence of related regulations has led to differences in tuition refund policies among institutions. The agency also identified cases of price discrimination depending on payment methods and instances of false or misleading representations and advertisements.

Currently, a remote pilot certificate is required to operate a drone. The certificate, administered by the Korea Transportation Safety Authority under commission from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, is a national qualification. From 2021 to 2023, an average of 27,000 people per year obtained this certification.

To obtain the certification, candidates must receive flight training at an accredited institution, fulfill flight experience requirements, and pass both written and practical exams. However, disputes have arisen between consumers and training institutions due to issues such as training not being provided after payment or contracts not being drawn up.

Of the 35 requests for dispute resolution related to drone training institutions received by the Korea Consumer Agency over the past four years, 28 cases (80%) involved tuition refunds. Currently, there is no legal standard for tuition refunds, so dispute resolution depends solely on the policies set by each institution. Among 133 specialized institutions with their own websites, only 32 (24.1%) disclosed their tuition refund policies, while 101 (75.9%) did not specify any such standards.

Even among the 32 institutions that disclosed refund policies, each used different criteria. Notably, three institutions claimed to follow standards set by the Private Academy Act but also stated that they would not refund tuition for mid-term cancellations or would charge a penalty for cancellations before the course began.

According to the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act and the Income Tax Act, it is prohibited to disadvantage credit card holders simply for using a credit card or to impose additional fees on consumers for requesting a cash receipt. In a survey conducted by the Korea Consumer Agency among individuals who had completed drone training, 6.6% (33 out of 500 respondents) reported differences in tuition fees depending on the payment method, indicating that some institutions do differentiate tuition fees by payment method.

Online monitoring of 133 institutions found that 132 had no notable issues regarding payment methods, but one institution indicated that it charged additional fees for card payments or issuing cash receipts. Among the 35 dispute resolution cases received by the Korea Consumer Agency from 2021 to September of last year, there was one case in which an additional fee was actually charged.

Under the current Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, businesses are prohibited from engaging in labeling or advertising practices that could deceive or mislead consumers, and any factual claims must be substantiated by the business. Online monitoring revealed that one out of 133 institutions advertised with the phrase "highest pass rate" without presenting any objective criteria or supporting evidence.

Additionally, in two dispute resolution cases received last year, institutions were found to have advertised with phrases such as "the only institution equipped with an airfield" or "government-funded discount for the first O applicants," without providing concrete evidence for these claims.

Based on the results of this investigation, the Korea Consumer Agency has requested relevant authorities to provide training institutions with guidelines on important considerations and contract templates for use when entering into agreements, encouraging their use to prevent disputes. The agency also advised consumers to thoroughly review transaction terms and training schedules before enrolling and to make decisions carefully.