Does Korea's Seven-Day Online Return Window Start at Delivery or at the Document?

The Scene

Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of Korea's electronic commerce consumer statute is built from three subparagraphs, and every one of them ends in seven days. The first of the three carries two starting events rather than one, because it has a proviso. Four start dates, one number, and nothing on a checkout page tells you which is yours.

The version most shoppers carry around is the simplest: seven days from the day the parcel arrives. That is usually right, but not for the reason people give. It is not the main rule. It is the output of a proviso that displaces the main rule, and the proviso bites only because a different article fixes which of two documents may arrive first.

The main rule counts from the day you receive the written statement of contract terms — the document Article 13(2) requires, carrying the matters that article lists — which in ordinary online shopping is usually the order confirmation that lands in your inbox when the card clears. Count from there and a purchase made on Monday 7 September 2026 and delivered on Thursday 10 September stops being returnable at the end of Monday 14 September. Count from delivery and the last day is Thursday 17 September.

Which reading governs turns on whether the goods arrived after the document or alongside it, and that turns on a deadline buried in the seller's disclosure duty. A downloadable file opened the same afternoon takes the other branch, where a further provision can remove the right altogether.

What follows tracks that number through the Act, the Civil Act's counting rules, a Fair Trade Commission notice that is not law, a ministerial interpretation and one Supreme Court judgment. The author is not a lawyer and this is not legal advice; it is a reading of published statutory text.

What the Rule Actually Says

The governing provision is "전자상거래 등에서의 소비자보호에 관한 법률 제17조(청약철회등)", Article 17 of the Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Etc., headed Withdrawal of Offer, Etc. The version in force is Act No. 21312, enforced 21 July 2026, at the National Law Information Center, Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Article 17, and the Fair Trade Commission administers it.

Paragraph 1 opens with a sentence whose parenthesis is usually skipped: "통신판매업자와 재화등의 구매에 관한 계약을 체결한 소비자는 다음 각 호의 기간(거래당사자가 다음 각 호의 기간보다 긴 기간으로 약정한 경우에는 그 기간을 말한다) 이내에 해당 계약에 관한 청약철회등을 할 수 있다." — a consumer who has concluded a contract to purchase goods, etc. with a mail order distributor may withdraw within the periods in the following subparagraphs, and where the parties agreed a longer period than those, that longer period is the period. The seven is a floor written into the statute, not a ceiling.

Subparagraph 1 holds both readings, separated by "다만", provided that: "제13조제2항에 따른 계약내용에 관한 서면을 받은 날부터 7일. 다만, 그 서면을 받은 때보다 재화등의 공급이 늦게 이루어진 경우에는 재화등을 공급받거나 재화등의 공급이 시작된 날부터 7일" — seven days from the day of receiving the written statement of contract terms under Article 13(2); provided that where supply of the goods, etc. is made later than the time of receiving that document, seven days from the day of receiving the goods, etc. or the day on which their supply begins.

Read alone, the proviso looks like an allowance for slow shipping. It is not, and the reason sits in the article it cross-refers to. The text of Article 13(2) that precedes its subparagraphs, at the National Law Information Center, Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Article 13, carries a deadline in its second half: "통신판매업자는 소비자가 계약체결 전에 재화등에 대한 거래조건을 정확하게 이해하고 실수나 착오 없이 거래할 수 있도록 다음 각 호의 사항을 적절한 방법으로 표시ㆍ광고하거나 고지하여야 하며, 계약이 체결되면 계약자에게 다음 각 호의 사항이 기재된 계약내용에 관한 서면을 재화등을 공급할 때까지 교부하여야 한다. 다만, 계약자의 권리를 침해하지 아니하는 범위에서 대통령령으로 정하는 사유가 있는 경우에는 계약자를 갈음하여 재화등을 공급받는 자에게 계약내용에 관한 서면을 교부할 수 있다." — the distributor shall indicate, advertise or notify the matters in the following subparagraphs by appropriate means so that the consumer accurately understands the terms and transacts without mistake or error before concluding the contract, and once the contract is concluded shall deliver to the contracting party, by the time the goods, etc. are supplied, a written statement of the contract terms containing those matters; provided that where a ground prescribed by Presidential Decree exists, to the extent that the contracting party's rights are not infringed, the written statement may be delivered to the person receiving the goods, etc. in place of the contracting party.

So the statute requires the document no later than supply. Where the distributor complies, the two dates in subparagraph 1 run one way only: the document arrives before supply or with it. The Act does not assume compliance — subparagraph 2 gives a separate period for the case where no such document was received — but on a compliant sale the proviso's condition is met whenever the goods are supplied after a confirmation email. For physical goods the proviso is the normal case and the main rule is the residue, and the residue is not empty. Where document and supply coincide the condition fails and the main rule governs, which is the shape of a service or a file started immediately.

Subparagraph 2 supplies a third start date, written as a fact rather than as a breach. Where no document was received, where one arrived without the distributor's address, or where withdrawal cannot be made inside the subparagraph 1 period because that address changed, the period is "통신판매업자의 주소를 안 날 또는 알 수 있었던 날부터 7일", seven days from the day the distributor's address became known or could have become known. Subparagraph 3 supplies the fourth: "그 방해 행위가 종료한 날부터 7일", seven days from the day the obstructive act ended, where withdrawal has been obstructed in either of the ways in Article 21(1)1 and 2, at the National Law Information Center, Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Article 21.

How the seven days are counted is not in this Act. Article 155 of the Civil Act, at the National Law Information Center, Civil Act, Article 155, sends every statutory period to the Civil Act's own chapter unless something else provides otherwise. Article 157 removes a day: "기간을 일, 주, 월 또는 연으로 정한 때에는 기간의 초일은 산입하지 아니한다. 그러나 그 기간이 오전 영시로부터 시작하는 때에는 그러하지 아니하다." — where a period is fixed in days, weeks, months or years the first day is not counted; however, this does not apply where the period begins at midnight. Article 161 moves the end: "기간의 말일이 토요일 또는 공휴일에 해당한 때에는 기간은 그 익일로 만료한다." — where the last day falls on a Saturday or a public holiday the period expires on the following day.

Paragraph 3 is not a seven at all, and it overrides the two paragraphs above it: "소비자는 제1항 및 제2항에도 불구하고 재화등의 내용이 표시ㆍ광고의 내용과 다르거나 계약내용과 다르게 이행된 경우에는 그 재화등을 공급받은 날부터 3개월 이내, 그 사실을 안 날 또는 알 수 있었던 날부터 30일 이내에 청약철회등을 할 수 있다." — notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, where the content of the goods, etc. differs from the labelling or advertising or the contract was performed differently from its terms, the consumer may withdraw within three months of receiving the goods and within thirty days of the day the fact became known or could have become known. Two limits, both of which must hold. Paragraph 4 fixes effect at dispatch for a written withdrawal, and paragraph 5 puts the burden of proving "재화등의 공급사실 및 그 시기", the fact of supply and its timing, on the distributor.

The Numbers

A card payment clears on Monday 7 September 2026, the confirmation arrives the same day, and the parcel on Thursday 10 September. Article 157 drops the first day from both counts. On the main rule the count starts on 8 September and the seventh day is Monday 14 September 2026, four days after the parcel arrived. On the proviso it starts on 11 September and the seventh day is Thursday 17 September 2026, seven days after the parcel arrived.

The paragraph 3 route is measured by the calendar. Article 160(2) of the Civil Act, which applies where a period in weeks, months or years is not counted from the beginning of one, ends it on the day before the day in the final month corresponding to the first day counted, so three months from a supply date of 10 September 2026 expires on Thursday 10 December 2026: 91 days after delivery, against seven.

The route also decides who pays the courier. Article 18, at the National Law Information Center, Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Article 18, splits it by the provision invoked. Under Article 17(1), "공급받은 재화등의 반환에 필요한 비용은 소비자가 부담하며", the costs necessary for returning the goods received shall be borne by the consumer, and the distributor may claim no penalty or damages for the withdrawal. Under Article 17(3), "재화등의 반환에 필요한 비용은 통신판매업자가 부담한다", those costs shall be borne by the distributor. Same parcel, opposite invoice.

For scale, the doorstep regime runs on fourteen and has one more branch. Article 8(1) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., Act No. 20712 enforced 21 January 2025, at the National Law Information Center, Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Article 8, has four subparagraphs to the e-commerce Act's three, with the same proviso structure at fourteen days. The extra one, "제7조제2항에 따른 계약서에 청약철회등에 관한 사항이 적혀 있지 아니한 경우에는 청약철회등을 할 수 있음을 안 날 또는 알 수 있었던 날부터 14일", runs fourteen days from the day it became known or could have become known that withdrawal was possible, where the contract document under Article 7(2) does not state the matters concerning withdrawal. Article 17(1) has no twin for that.

Volumes make small differences expensive. Online shopping in Korea turned over 25.0954 trillion won in July 2026, up 7.3 per cent year on year, of which mobile took 19.5716 trillion won, or 78.0 per cent, per the Ministry of Data and Statistics, Online Shopping Trends for July 2026. Three days of window across that volume is not a rounding error.

Where This Doesn't Apply

Article 3 switches the machinery off in four different ways, at the National Law Information Center, Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, Article 3, and they are not the same switch. Paragraph 1 removes the whole Act: "이 법의 규정은 사업자(「방문판매 등에 관한 법률」 제2조제6호의 다단계판매원은 제외한다. 이하 이 항에서 같다)가 상행위를 목적으로 구입하는 거래에는 적용하지 아니한다." — this Act does not apply to transactions in which a business operator, excluding a multi-level marketing salesperson under Article 2(6) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, purchases for the purpose of a commercial activity.

Paragraph 3 removes Articles 17 to 19 from one actor rather than from the transaction: "통신판매업자가 아닌 자 사이의 통신판매중개를 하는 통신판매업자에 대하여는 제13조부터 제15조까지, 제17조부터 제19조까지의 규정을 적용하지 아니한다." — Articles 13 to 15 and 17 to 19 do not apply to a mail order distributor who brokers mail order sales between persons who are not mail order distributors. The provision is addressed to the intermediary, not to the private seller. Paragraph 4 removes a wider block, Articles 12 to 15, Articles 17 to 20 and Article 20-2, from named trades: securities transactions by investment traders and investment brokers, financial product transactions by financial companies prescribed by Presidential Decree, and "일상 생활용품, 음식료 등을 인접지역에 판매하기 위한 거래", transactions for the sale of daily necessities, food and drink and the like in adjacent areas. Paragraph 2 switches off only the document duty, for two listed categories.

Article 17(2) lists six cases in which the consumer cannot withdraw against the distributor's will, and only two of them carry a qualification of their own: subparagraph 1, which excepts packaging damaged in order to check the contents, and subparagraph 5. Subparagraph 5 covers a service or digital content whose provision has begun, with a proviso: "다만, 가분적 용역 또는 가분적 디지털콘텐츠로 구성된 계약의 경우에는 제공이 개시되지 아니한 부분에 대하여는 그러하지 아니하다." — provided that in a contract composed of divisible services or divisible digital content this does not apply to the portion whose provision has not begun. Subparagraph 6 hands the rest to Presidential Decree. Where subparagraph 5 bites and the marking was done, the count from the start of provision is zero days, not seven. But the proviso to paragraph 2 restores the right where the distributor has not taken the paragraph 6 measures, clear marking or trial samples, so that "청약철회등의 권리 행사가 방해받지 아니하도록", the exercise of the right is not obstructed. For digital content the proviso to paragraph 6 is stricter, requiring the marking of impossibility together with trial samples as the Decree prescribes. Miss it and subparagraphs 2 to 5 stop working.

The three-month route does not cover a swap. Asked whether returning goods and receiving different goods in exchange falls within withdrawal under Article 17(3), the Ministry of Government Legislation answered in interpretation 24-0867 of 30 December 2024, at the National Law Information Center, Ministry of Government Legislation interpretation 24-0867, "이 사안의 경우, 교환은 전자상거래법 제17조제3항에 따른 "청약철회등"에 포함되지 않습니다." — in this case, exchange is not included in withdrawal of offer under Article 17(3). A refund request and a swap request are different filings.

If You Are Actually in This Situation

Write down two dates first: the day the confirmation of contract terms reached you, and the day the goods or the first instalment of the service reached you. If the second is later, your count runs from the second. If they fall on the same day it runs from that day, and read Article 17(2) before assuming you still have a right at all.

Then read the shop's own returns page as a contract term, not as marketing: the parenthesis in Article 17(1) makes a longer agreed period the statutory period.

Send the withdrawal in writing and keep the dispatch record, because Article 17(4) fixes effect at dispatch. If the seller disputes when the parcel landed, Article 17(5) puts the burden of proving the supply date on the seller. The Supreme Court added a second burden in 2018Da214746, decided on 15 June 2023 and published at the National Law Information Center, Supreme Court judgment 2018Da214746: a mobile service billed monthly may be a contract of divisible services, so withdrawal can reach the portion not yet provided, and the business must prove both that a ground of restriction exists and that it discharged the marking duty.

Keep the layers apart. The right and its four start dates are in a statute. The compensation tables people quote are not: the Consumer Dispute Resolution Standards are Fair Trade Commission Notice No. 2023-28, enforced 20 December 2023, at the National Law Information Center, Consumer Dispute Resolution Standards, and Article 16(3) of the Framework Act on Consumers sets their weight: "제2항의 규정에 따른 소비자분쟁해결기준은 분쟁당사자 사이에 분쟁해결방법에 관한 별도의 의사표시가 없는 경우에 한하여 분쟁해결을 위한 합의 또는 권고의 기준이 된다." — the Standards under paragraph 2 serve as a criterion for agreement or recommendation only where the parties have made no separate declaration about the method of resolution. A third layer is guidance: the Ministry of Government Legislation restates the custom-made-goods case delegated by Article 17(2)6 at its Ministry of Government Legislation, Easy Law guide to returns and refunds in internet shopping, and a restatement is not the Decree.

Note which way the error runs. Reading the main rule when the proviso governs costs you days you had; reading the proviso when document and supply coincided gives you days you never had. Korean deadlines run from an event rather than from notice, as with the fifteen-day residence report after moving house, and often turn on a counting convention rather than a calendar, as with tenant protection beginning at midnight the following day. As with one number deciding which parts of a statute a business keeps, the question to ask of a threshold is not what the number is. It is which clause says when counting starts.