Refund or one-star: how Korean delivery customers extort restaurants.
Korean operators call it 별점테러 — "star-rating-attack". A customer orders on Baemin, Coupang Eats or Yogiyo (the three dominant Korean food-delivery apps), eats most of the food, then claims a foreign object or a missing item and demands a partial refund backed by a one-star review threat the operator cannot easily remove. The owner usually folds within the hour. One one-star review on a delivery app can sink an outlet's algorithmic ranking — and therefore its order volume — for weeks. Under Baemin's 2026 commission structure the platform also keeps its cut on the original transaction even when the operator fully refunds the customer, so every coerced refund burns the commission as sunk cost too. Korea's Information and Communications Network Act §44-2 (the online-content takedown statute) nominally lets an operator request a 30-day blind — a temporary hide — on a disputed review, but the platforms require the original poster's consent, which extortionate posters never give. The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), the country's antitrust regulator, has pressed platforms on review moderation since 2024 but stopped short of mandating operator-side takedown rights, leaving the pain unresolved into 2026.
01The pain
A customer in Busan orders fried chicken on Baemin, eats most of it, photographs an alleged hair, then demands a partial refund and threatens a one-star review. The owner folds within the hour. The math forces the hand: a single one-star review on Baemin (one of the three dominant Korean food-delivery apps, alongside Coupang Eats and Yogiyo) can sink an outlet's algorithmic ranking, and so its order volume, for weeks.1
Korean operators call this 별점테러, star-rating-attack. Threads on Ruliweb's humour board and DC Inside's chicken-shop gallery (an operator-heavy sub-board) describe one to three attempts a month, year after year, since 2022.2,3,4 One outcome compounds the loss. Under Baemin's 2026 commission rules the platform keeps its cut on the original sale even when the operator fully refunds the customer. Every coerced partial refund burns the commission as sunk cost.
On paper there is a takedown channel. §44-2 of Korea's Information and Communications Network Act (the online-content takedown statute) lets an operator request a 30-day blind on a disputed review, a temporary hide while the dispute is heard. The platforms ask the original poster for consent before honouring the blind. Extortionate posters never give it. The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), Korea's antitrust regulator, has pressed platforms on review moderation since 2024 but stopped short of mandating operator-side takedown rights.2
Further reading
- 1 Ruliweb 유머 게시판 (humour board), 2025 thread — 49 distinct commenters describing customer-side mis-orders followed by star-rating-attacks on the shop: bbs.ruliweb.com
- 2 Ruliweb operator-narrative thread, 2022 — 70 commenters; verbatim explanation of how the §44-2 30-day blind request requires the original reviewer's consent before the platform will honour it: m.ruliweb.com
- 3 DC Inside 치킨 갤러리 (chicken-shop gallery), 2024 thread — chicken-shop operator describes Baemin's partial-refund mechanic eating into the operator's payout, with the OP confirming the pattern is widespread: m.dcinside.com
- 4 Ruliweb 유머 게시판, 2026 thread — 111 commenters; continuation of the same star-rating-attack pattern, four-year recurring arc on the same operator board: bbs.ruliweb.com
Operators discussing this
These are real Korean operators (and adjacent commenters) talking about this pain in their own words. They are the reason this page exists.
-
«지가 잘못주문해놓고 별점테러 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ»
"Customer mis-orders the item themselves and then star-rating-attacks the shop, lol."
지가 잘못주문해놓고 별점테러 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ · Ruliweb 유머 게시판 (forum-board) — 49 distinct commenters on a single thread; same complaint pattern recurs on Ruliweb 유머 게시판 across 2022 (thread 55564396, 70 comments) → 2025 (thread 70805307, 49 comments) → 2026 (thread 74859719, 111 comments) — four-year recurring arc on the same board.
-
«가게사장님이 30일 블라인드 요청하는거 그 댓글 쓴 고객한테 문자가서 동의 받아야 할수있는거임»
"When the shop owner files a 30-day blind request [the §44-2 takedown channel], a text goes to the customer who wrote the review and the owner has to get THEIR consent — that's how it works."
배민 별점 1점 테러범 찾아간 후기 · Ruliweb (forum-board) — 70 distinct commenters; operator-narrative thread; the same complaint pattern reappears in 2025 and 2026 threads on the same board.
-
«가게가 실수로 뭐 빠트렸는데 가게생각해서 재배달말고 부분환불함 근데 빠트린 메뉴 전체금액이 안들어오는거 ... 검색해보니 비슷한 일 겪고 황당하다는 사람들 많네»
"Shop made a mistake and missed an item, so I (the operator) did a partial refund instead of redelivery to be nice — but the full price of the missed item doesn't come back to me ... I searched and lots of people are stuck with the same absurd thing."
배민 부분환불 왜 이 ㅈㄹ임? · DC Inside 치킨 갤러리 (chicken-shop gallery, forum-board) — 12 commenters on chicken-shop operator board; OP explicitly says "searched and lots of others have the same issue" — recurrence both within and outside the thread.
02Who solves this today
Review-management, reputation-defence and customer-feedback platforms publicly self-marketing to restaurants — each homepage was checked live on the date of writing. Honest gap note: none of the platforms below are localised for the three Korean delivery apps named in section 01 (Baemin, Coupang Eats, Yogiyo). They cover Google, Yelp, TripAdvisor, Facebook and other Western review surfaces. The wedge the candidate identifies — auto-detection of extortion patterns on Baemin / Coupang Eats / Yogiyo, evidence packaging, §44-2 takedown filing, defamation counsel on flat retainer — is currently unserved in the Korean market. Inclusion is not endorsement.
Listed providers publicly self-market a reputation-management or review-management product. Inclusion is not endorsement. Considered and dropped (each checked on the date of writing): Yotpo — primarily an e-commerce reviews and loyalty platform, restaurant-operator wedge not foregrounded on the homepage; Trustpilot for Business — Trustpilot is structurally a consumer review platform and does not integrate with Korean delivery apps; Grade.us — agency-resold reputation tooling, no Korean-market footprint surfaced; Naver Smart Place review tools — operated by Naver (Korea's dominant search portal) and would only cover Naver-surface reviews, not the three delivery apps named as the cause-set; Baemin (Woowa Brothers), Coupang Eats and Yogiyo — named delivery platforms cited in section 01 as the venue of the pain, not as solution providers; the Korea Fair Trade Commission and the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) are referenced in section 01 as regulators, not vendors. The Korean-language review-defence SaaS the candidate describes — extortion-pattern auto-detection across Baemin / Coupang Eats / Yogiyo, §44-2 takedown filing, defamation counsel on flat retainer — is not currently published by any vendor we could verify.
Report a mistake — or suggest a new solution
Spot a wrong number, dead source link, missing aspect, broken translation? Or know a vendor we should list as a solution? Tell us. The Director re-checks every report and either updates the page or writes back with a reason.
Got it — thank you.
The Director will look at your report on the next research cycle. If you left an email you'll hear back when we either update the page or decide it's not actionable (with a one-paragraph reason).
Listed companies — manage your entry. If you are one of the providers above and anything here is wrong, missing, or out of date — or you'd rather not be listed — write to us. Removal within 24 hours; corrections within 7 business days. We do not contact listed companies first; we publish what your own public marketing claims and respond when you reach out. Email contact@aikraft.com.