A Seoul court has ruled that a matchmaking service member must pay a contracted marriage “success fee” even after quitting over alleged personal data exposure. The court also said the member owed a penalty for failing to notify the company of the marriage.
According to legal officials on May 5, Judge Bang Chang-hyeon of the Seoul Central District Court, sitting alone in Civil Division 83, ordered B to pay matchmaking company A a success fee of 11.88 million won and a penalty of 35.64 million won, for a total of 47.52 million won, in a lawsuit seeking payment under the contract.
B signed a membership contract on Sept. 14, 2022, to receive five introductions over one year and to pay 11.88 million won within two weeks once a marriage was confirmed. The contract also said the fee was due even if the marriage resulted from meetings after the contract period or after the five introductions, and that failure to report a marriage would trigger payment of three times the success fee.
B met C, a member of an A affiliate, in January 2023 and married in June that year, but did not inform A. A then sued for the success fee and the penalty.
B argued the contract had been mutually terminated by agreement in May 2023, but the court rejected the claim. The judge said it was acknowledged that B’s father protested what he said was disclosure of B’s personal information and, acting as B’s representative, expressed an intent to withdraw, and that A said it would process the withdrawal. However, the court said there was no evidence to treat that as a legal mutual termination of the contract.
The court found B had made an ordinary “membership withdrawal,” but said that did not eliminate the duty to pay the success fee. It cited the one-year service period, the time it typically takes for a couple to marry after first meeting, and B’s agreement at signing to pay even if the marriage occurred after the contract period.
On the penalty, the court treated the clause as a contractual punitive provision and said B owed it because the success fee was not paid. The judge said the success fee functioned as a deferred payment for services and that the company needed a way to indirectly enforce payment, especially because it would be difficult to learn of a member’s marriage without notification.
The court also dismissed B’s claims that A unlawfully leaked personal information and that, contrary to the financial information provided at signup, A supplied false or exaggerated details about salary and assets, leading to serious conflict with C’s family during the formal meeting between families. The judge said there was no evidence to support those assertions.
The court said it was recognized that in June 2019 B completed a personality test on A’s website and agreed to the collection and use of personal information, including arranging meetings with affiliate members. It added that A provided information about B’s salary and assets based on what B entered at signup.
Even if B’s claims were true, the court said, A did not provide B’s information to unrelated parties or profit-seeking companies, but to C’s side, a potential marriage partner. The judge added that the marriage was not broken off due to the information provided and that because B and C ultimately married, B could not belatedly raise alleged data exposure or false or exaggerated information to resist A’s claims.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.