A customer who received a refund for lying that he had not received bottled water ordered 240 kg of bottled water against a courier who found CCTV evidence and immediately returned it.
According to the logistics delivery industry on the 1st, around 4:50 am on February 8th, a delivery driver, Mr. Jo, delivered 4 boxes of bottled water to a villa in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Cho carried bottled water weighing about 40kg in his hand and completed the delivery by climbing the stairs of the 4th floor villa without an elevator.
However, a few days later I received a text message from the company. The customer said he did not receive the product and received a refund of 36,400 won for bottled water. The company demanded an explanation from Mr Cho, saying, “You can avoid the penalty by finding a product.”
Joe contacted the customer immediately. The customer said, “I believe I received a text saying I ordered on February 7th and the item arrived the next day, but when I returned home the next day or the day after, the product there.” In the end, it was treated as an accident of labour, and Mr Cho had to ask for the refund.
Joe said he was suspicious of something. Normally, when an item is lost, the customer first tries to find the item by contacting the courier, but this customer received an instant refund without contact. Also, it was strange that bottled water was the missing item. This was because heavy and bulky bottled water was usually rarely carried by someone.
Mr Cho went to the customer’s villa and checked the CCTV. CCTV footage showed a woman coming out and taking 4 boxes of bottled water home two and a half hours after Mr Cho delivered the bottled water. However, the customer continued to claim that “they had not received bottled water.” Mr Cho reported to the police thinking that ‘this person must have done the same to other transport drivers’. Only then did the customer admit that it “appeared to be a mistake.” The money refunded to Mr. Cho only after a month had passed since he had taken the bottled water. Mr Cho said, “This is the first time I have insisted on saying no even if I said I had seen the CCTV, and then got a refund when the police came.”
The problem did not end here. The customer then ordered 20 boxes of bottled water. I ordered 12 kg of bottled water in one box, a total of 240 kg. It was 5 times more than the usual 3-4 boxes. Mr Cho finished the delivery by going up and down the stairs on the 4th floor 5 times with 4 boxes of bottled water.
The absurdities didn’t stop there. When Mr. Cho sent a message that the delivery was complete, he immediately received a call saying, “The 8 boxes have been returned, so you have to take them back.” Mr. Cho said, “I felt that the customer was trying to make me suffer intentionally,” and announced that he would file a civil lawsuit demanding 1 million won in alimony due to mental and time damage after to waste. It was based on the previous ruling that a customer who lied about not receiving a 35,000 won item had to pay 1 million won in alimony to a delivery driver who didn’t do his job properly while searching for evidence for 10 days.
Then the customer suddenly said, “I can’t work right now. receiver (basic life),” he said, expressing that his circumstances were difficult. He continued, “Once I think about it to some extent, I think it will take time to get the money.”
Mr Cho later received another call from the company. He was said to threaten customers. The customer told the company’s counselor, “I was confused with another bottled water order and received a refund after receiving the loss. The courier driver was subsequently reported to the police, and was threatened with a 1 million won settlement, and was constantly receiving text messages threatening to proceed with a civil lawsuit.”
The customer claimed he was the victim in an interview with MBC. He said, “I’m going to sue, but if I don’t want to be sued, I naturally feel like this (threateningly) to ask for money.”
Cho plans to file a complaint against the customer with the police for fraud. He said, “Mentally, it was hardest for us to mistrust our customers because of this one person.”