SK Telecom, which experienced a USIM (Universal Subscriber Identification Module) hacking incident, has been mandated by the government to maintain a full waiver of cancellation penalties until the end of the year. Additionally, it has been decided that customers wishing to cancel their TV and internet services will only be charged half the penalty. The cancellation penalty refers to the amount returned for the benefits received if a contract is terminated early during the commitment period. This includes refunds for device subsidies or discounts from the optional contract.
The Korea Communications Commission (KCC) stated on the 21st that the Telecommunications Dispute Resolution Committee had made an ex officio adjustment decision acknowledging the company's responsibility regarding the penalty dispute related to the SK Telecom breach incident. The ex officio adjustment decision is established if both parties accept it. However, if either party does not accept it, it concludes as 'dispute unresolved.'
SK Telecom previously implemented a waiver of mobile termination penalties as a follow-up measure to the breach incident. This follows the Ministry of Science and ICT's judgment that SK Telecom was at fault for the USIM hacking incident.
SK Telecom set April 18, prior to the breach incident, as the reference date for the penalty exemption. It was decided to waive penalties for customers under contract who canceled their contracts due to the breach incident at that time. However, the period for the penalty waiver was limited to July 14. Additionally, penalties were imposed for the cancellation of bundled products such as TV and internet.
Two disputes claiming unfairness regarding the full imposition of penalties after the deadline for waivers have been received by the Telecommunications Dispute Resolution Committee, arguing that mobile services were canceled after the exemption deadline. In response, the committee decided that if users apply for termination of mobile services within this year, SK Telecom must fully waive the cancellation penalties.
The Dispute Resolution Committee noted, 'There is no legal basis for limiting or extinguishing the customer's legitimate right to cancel the contract as long as there are no reasons for extinction under the law,' stating that the deadline for the penalty exemption announced by SK Telecom lacks legal grounds.
The Dispute Resolution Committee also mentioned, 'The deadline for the waiver announcement on the 4th of last month until the cancellation exemption deadline (July 14) was considerably short,' and stated, 'Considering that it would have been difficult to recognize through a long text message (once), there are no reasonable grounds to exclude applicants who request cancellation after the deadline from the penalty waiver.'
Separately, the Dispute Resolution Committee received two dispute resolutions requesting cancellation of bundled products without penalties for the use of SK Telecom's wireline services along with mobile services, such as internet and TV. The committee decided that SK Telecom must compensate an amount equivalent to 50% of the penalty borne by the applicant due to the cancellation of the mixed products.
The Dispute Resolution Committee cited as reasons for this decision: ▲ It was confirmed that SK Telecom violated its primary obligation to provide safe communication services, and ▲ The cancellation of bundled products was an unavoidable measure due to SK Telecom's negligence.
The Dispute Resolution Committee determined that 'the fact that bundled products with internet and TV services are common means it can be anticipated that wireline services will also be canceled within the commitment period,' and that the imposition of penalties due to the SK Telecom breach incident and the mid-term cancellation of wireline services are significant consequential damages subject to compensation to the applicant. It stated, 'In the case of bundled products, although wireline and wireless services are committed separately, they are practically sold as a single integrated product.'
The Dispute Resolution Committee also announced the ex officio adjustment decision related to the cancellation of pre-orders for KT. KT operated a 'Galaxy S25 pre-order' event in January, offering various benefits such as gifts. During this process, they unilaterally canceled the pre-orders due to the omission of notification regarding the 'limited to the first 1,000 people' event through partner channels. A total of 22 dispute resolutions have been received in connection with this issue.
The Dispute Resolution Committee has decided that KT must issue gift certificates promised during the event held from January 23 to 25 to the applicants. If the pre-order was made through a partner channel on YouTube, they should receive a 100,000 won Naver Pay voucher and a 50,000 won CASETiFY gift certificate. If applied through Genie TV, a 100,000 won Shinsegae gift certificate is to be issued, according to the judgment of the Dispute Resolution Committee.
The Dispute Resolution Committee stated, 'It is insufficient to acknowledge that KT had difficulties supplying the Galaxy S25,' and concluded, 'They do not have the authority to arbitrarily cancel pre-orders.' It was further noted, 'There is no situation that could be regarded as first-come, first-served, and no special circumstances appear to indicate that the mobile phone manufacturer would only supply a limited quantity to KT,' viewing the cancellations as primarily caused by an increase in KT's business (promotion) expenses.
The Dispute Resolution Committee notified both the respondent (the telecommunications company) and the applicants (26 individuals) of the ex officio adjustment decision containing this content. The committee stated, 'In both cases, considering the submitted materials and statements of the dispute parties, there is no likelihood of reaching an agreement, predicting a prolonged nature of the cases,' and noted, 'Given that there are multiple applicants who suffered similar damages, expedient processing and the consistency and fairness of the adjustments are required, leading to the decision to proceed with the 'ex officio adjustment decision.