Guide to Claims for Compensation for Consumer Harm

Based on 26 consultation cases · Updated October 4, 2026 · Translated from the Korean original.

To obtain compensation for consumer harm, you must prove the facts required for the issues involved, such as whether an advertisement was false, whether a product was defective, and whether there was a causal link between the conduct and the damage. However, where it is difficult for consumers to prove a matter scientifically or technically, such as a product defect, the burden of proof may be eased if certain facts are established.

Who is involved → Consumer → Advertiser → Manufacturer → Consumer suffers harm after an ad or product use → Was an ad untrue or exaggerated and likely to mislead? → Did the product lack ordinary quality and cause harm during normal use? → Did the manufacturer prove another cause? → Compensation may be available if the required facts are proved → The claim may fail or causation may remain unproved → Assess the ad’s overall impression on an ordinarily attentive consumer → If purchaser status was transferred, check for special circumstances showing direct loss → If damages were fixed by contract, consider reduction in light of all circumstances → Yes — Article 3(1)(1), Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising → No → Yes → Check the ad assessment → Check who suffered the loss → Check the agreed amount

Key points

Whether an advertisement is false or exaggerated is determined objectively by reference to the overall and ultimate impression it would make on an ordinarily attentive consumer (Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, Article 3(1)(1) (표시광고법 제3조 제1항 제1호); Examples 5, 14, and 24).
Even if a consumer entered into a transaction after seeing an advertisement, entitlement to compensation depends on whether the advertisement was untrue or excessively exaggerated, whether it could mislead consumers, and other relevant factors (Examples 5 and 14).
In a product-defect case, if the consumer proves facts supporting an inference that the product lacked its ordinary quality or performance, and that damage occurred despite use in the normal manner, causation between the defect and the damage may be presumed if the manufacturer cannot prove another cause (Examples 2 and 8).
The mere fact that a product has passed its expected service life does not automatically extinguish the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure safety. Whether the product was used normally and whether another cause of the fire or accident existed may be at issue (Examples 9 and 19).
The right to claim damages for false or exaggerated advertising does not automatically transfer from the original apartment purchaser merely because the purchaser’s status is transferred to someone else. Special circumstances showing that the assignee suffered loss due to the advertising may be required (Example 4).
Even if the injured party’s fault contributed to the occurrence or extent of the damage, where the amount of damages was fixed in advance by contract, the issue may be whether to reduce the agreed amount in light of all the circumstances, rather than to reduce damages for contributory negligence (Civil Act, Article 398(2) (민법 제398조 제2항); Example 15).
The mere fact that a regulatory agency did not exercise its authority does not establish state liability for compensation. The relevant standard is whether, in the specific circumstances, the failure to exercise that authority was manifestly unreasonable (Example 3).

Frequently asked questions

Q. Can I claim compensation if an advertisement does not match reality?

An advertisement may be false or misleading if it is untrue or excessively exaggerated in a way that could mislead consumers and disrupt fair trade. The assessment generally considers objectively the overall impression the advertisement would make on an ordinarily attentive consumer.

Case 5, Case 14, Case 24

Q. I was harmed while using a product normally. Do I have to prove the defect directly?

When it is difficult to establish a specific defect and causation scientifically or technically, consumers may prove facts showing that the product lacked the quality or performance it would ordinarily be expected to have, and that damage occurred despite its use in the normal manner. If the manufacturer cannot prove another cause, causation between the defect and the damage may be presumed.

Case 2, Case 8

Q. Can I no longer hold a manufacturer responsible once an appliance has passed its expected service life?

The manufacturer’s duty to ensure product safety does not automatically end merely because the product has passed its expected service life. It is necessary to consider whether the accident occurred during normal use and whether another cause led to it.

Case 9, Case 19

Q. I bought an apartment relying on the sales advertisement. Can I receive compensation if the advertised facility is never built?

Compensation may be at issue if a developer advertised that a facility would be built, for example, even though the development plan had not been finalized, or made other untrue or excessively exaggerated claims. Whether an advertisement could mislead consumers is assessed based on the overall impression it would make on an ordinary consumer.

Case 5, Case 14

Q. If I take over the purchaser’s status for an apartment that was advertised falsely or in an exaggerated way, does the right to claim damages transfer to me as well?

The right of the original apartment purchaser to claim damages for tort does not automatically transfer merely because the purchaser’s status is assigned to someone else. The assignee may have a claim if there are special circumstances showing that they suffered direct loss—for example, by relying on false or exaggerated advertising and acquiring the purchaser’s status at a price inflated by the advertising.

Case 4

Q. What factors are considered when holding a manufacturer responsible for a dangerous product design?

A design defect may be found where adopting a reasonable alternative design could have prevented an accident or reduced the risk, but the product was made unsafe because that design was not adopted. The assessment takes into account the product’s characteristics and purpose, foreseeable risks, the possibility of avoiding those risks, and the feasibility and economic cost of an alternative design.

Case 10

Q. If both product use and a disease diagnosis are confirmed, is causation also established?

The fact that someone was exposed to a product or substance and later developed an illness does not, by itself, establish that the exposure caused that person’s illness. The specific circumstances must be considered, including the type of illness and other contributing factors. One case discussed in the examples did not find a causal link between smoking and a particular type of lung cancer.

Case 6, Case 13

Q. Can I claim compensation from a carrier if cargo is damaged or a passenger is injured during transport?

If cargo is damaged during rail transport, the carrier’s negligence is presumed in the first instance. Unless the carrier proves that it exercised due care, it will be difficult for it to avoid liability for compensation. If a passenger is injured on a train, the carrier may also be held responsible unless it proves that it exercised due care to ensure passenger safety.

Case 17, Case 23

Relevant laws

Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 23(1)(3) (독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 제23조 제1항 제3호)
Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 36(1), Appendix Table 1-2, Subparagraph 4(a) (독점규제 및 공정거래에 관한 법률 시행령 제36조 제1항 [별표 1의2] 제4호 (가)목)
Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, Article 3(1)(1) (표시·광고의 공정화에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 제1호)
Enforcement Decree of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, Article 3(1) (표시·광고의 공정화에 관한 법률 시행령 제3조 제1항)
Former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (구 표시·광고의 공정화에 관한 법률)
Former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (구 약사법)
Framework Act on Consumers (소비자기본법)
Consumer Protection Act, Article 18(1)(5) (소비자보호법 제18조 제1항 제5호)
Civil Act, Article 398(2) (민법 제398조 제2항)
Civil Act, Article 750 (민법 제750조)

Watch out for

The laws and standards applied vary from case to case. The relevant issues should be identified according to the type of harm, such as a product defect, false advertising, or a transport accident.
Even where the consumer’s burden of proof may be eased, the consumer must establish facts supporting an inference that the product had a quality or performance problem, as well as normal use and the occurrence of damage.
It may not be enough to establish only that there was a problem with an advertisement or product. You should also consider the causal link between the actual damage and the problematic conduct, and who holds the right to bring the claim.
The examples do not specify any particular claim deadline or limitation period, so this guide alone cannot be used to determine a deadline.

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).