The story of a mother who belatedly found out that her elementary school daughter had sent 2 million won in donations to an internet streamer has drawn wide attention. According to a Money Today report, a post titled "My elementary school daughter sent 2 million won to a BJ on an Excel broadcast" was uploaded to an online community on the 16th. An "Excel broadcast" is a live stream in which several streamers (BJs) appear together and are ranked in real time according to the amount of donations they receive. The child reportedly kept sending money because she liked it when the BJ called out her nickname and reacted to her.
The author said that when she asked for a refund, she was told only, again and again, "It is not possible under our rules; report it to the police." Many people sympathized with her complaint that sending the money took just a few taps, yet getting it back meant the parent had to make inquiries here and there.
So is there really nothing that can be done? To give the conclusion first, the law separately protects transactions that a minor enters into without parental consent. To receive that protection, however, parents need to know exactly what they must prove.
1. How Does the Law View Transactions by Minors?
A. Transactions without parental consent can be rescinded
Article 5(1) of the Civil Act provides that a minor must obtain the consent of his or her legal representative to perform a juristic act, and paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that an act in violation of this may be rescinded. Buying donation items is a sales contract with the platform, and sending those items to a BJ is an act of transferring property without consideration. If an elementary school student paid for and sent 2 million won worth of items without her parents' knowledge, both acts may be subject to rescission.
B. Once rescinded, the transaction is treated as if it never existed
Under Article 141 of the Civil Act, a juristic act that has been rescinded is deemed null and void from the beginning. The platform must return the payment it received. In this case, the minor needs to return only the benefit she received from the act to the extent that it still exists (proviso to the same Article). If the items have already been sent to the BJ and used up, there is good reason to regard the child as having practically no remaining benefit.
2. "No Refunds Under Our Rules" Does Not Hold Up
A. The Civil Act takes precedence over the terms of service
Even if a platform's terms of service contain a clause stating that "items given as gifts are non-refundable," it cannot get around the provisions protecting minors. The Supreme Court has regarded the provision requiring the consent of a legal representative for a minor's juristic acts as a mandatory provision.
Supreme Court Decision 2005Da71659, November 16, 2007
A minor who concluded a credit purchase contract without the consent of a legal representative does not violate the principle of good faith by later rescinding the contract on the ground of lack of consent.
The point is that even if the other party to the transaction trusted that the minor would not later rescind it, that trust cannot be used to block rescission.
B. Businesses also have a duty to inform
Article 13(3) of the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce (the “E-Commerce Act”, 전자상거래법), Etc. requires a mail-order business operator, when concluding a contract with a minor, to inform the minor that the minor or the legal representative may rescind the contract if the legal representative does not consent. If an elementary school student was able to pay several million won without any age verification or such notice, the platform can hardly be free from responsibility either.
3. When Rescission Is Still Blocked
A. If it was money the parents gave her to spend
Article 6 of the Civil Act provides that a minor may freely dispose of property that the legal representative has permitted him or her to dispose of within a defined scope. If the payments were made within money the parents had entrusted to the child to spend, such as an allowance, rescission may be difficult. The Supreme Court judgment above also held that consent can be given tacitly, and that this must be determined by taking into account the minor's age, independent income, the nature and circumstances of the contract, and so on. In fact, in that case, the court found that there had been tacit permission to dispose of property with respect to payments made within the monthly income of a minor who was over 19 years old and earned her own income, and it did not allow rescission. The circumstances are very different from those of an elementary school student spending 2 million won.
B. If the child used deception
Article 17 of the Civil Act provides that a minor cannot rescind an act if he or she used deceptive means to make the other party believe that he or she was an adult or that the legal representative had consented. However, this provision is interpreted narrowly.
Supreme Court Decision 71Da2045, December 14, 1971
Using deceptive means (trickery) refers to actively using fraudulent means; merely stating that one has legal capacity does not amount to this, and the burden of proof lies with the other party.
If the child merely entered a careless date of birth on the sign-up screen, it is hard to say that her right of rescission is immediately blocked.
C. If the payment method was in a parent's name
This is the trickiest issue. If the child paid using a mobile phone, card or account in a parent's name, the platform is likely to argue that the parent was the party to the contract. In that case, the key is to prove that the person who actually made the payments and donations was the child. The article alone does not make clear what payment method was used.
4. What Parents Should Do Now
A. Secure the evidence first
Capture and download the nickname on the child's account, the payment history showing the dates and amounts, the donation history screens, and the bills from the mobile carrier or card company. Deleting the account or the records makes proof difficult, so the principle is to preserve everything as it is. It is also wise to organize circumstances regarding the device's use that show the child made the payments on her own.
B. Make the intention to rescind clear in writing
Do not stop at a phone call to customer service; send a written notice or a certified letter (content-certified mail) in the name of the legal representative stating that, because this was a juristic act by a minor, it is being rescinded under Article 5 of the Civil Act. Documents showing that the child is a minor, such as a family relationship certificate, can be submitted along with it. The right of rescission must be exercised within three years from the day on which ratification became possible and within ten years from the day on which the juristic act was performed (Article 146 of the Civil Act), but the longer one waits, the harder it becomes to secure the records, so it is best to act quickly.
C. If it is not resolved, consider dispute mediation and litigation
If the platform ultimately refuses, the parents can apply for damage relief and dispute mediation through bodies such as the Korea Consumer Agency, and if that fails, they can consider a lawsuit for the return of unjust enrichment. Even if they were advised to report to the police, they should remember that where the child sent the money herself, the essence of the matter is rescission and restitution under civil law rather than criminal proceedings.
5. Closing Thoughts
The system for protecting minors is a mechanism to protect children whose judgment is not yet sufficiently developed, even at some cost to the security of transactions. If the structure allows several million won to drain away with a few taps, then before any refund dispute arises, age verification and payment limits at the payment stage must work properly. Parents, too, need to check the payment passwords and micropayment limits on their children's devices. Before blaming the child, we should first question the structure that allowed the child to pay so easily.
(Shin Dong-woo, Managing Partner, DAEON Law Firm)
Photo: Kelly Sikkema, CC0 Public Domain (StockSnap, Openverse)
2026. 10. 21. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin
Call
KakaoTalk
E-mail