[Edaily Reporter Lee So-Hyun ] The rate of compensation for consumers through Naver’s (NAVER(035420)) Consumer Dispute Mediation Center was recorded at 83.6%. While the Naver User Protection and Self-Regulation Committee assessed that the dispute mediation function is operating effectively, it recommended further categorizing dispute types and establishing an early warning system linked to external consumer counseling data.

On the 6th, Naver’s User Protection and Self-Regulation Committee released the results of a comprehensive analysis of Naver’s 2025 consumer dispute data, cross-referenced with external consumer consultation data.

The analysis was conducted by Professor Choi Nan-seol-heon of Yonsei University, Professor Lee Dae-ho of Sungkyunkwan University, and Jeong Ji-yeon, Secretary General of the Korea Consumer Federation.

The research team stated that Naver has been mediating disputes between sellers and consumers through its Dispute Mediation Center, which has been in operation since 2017, and that the actual compensation rate stood at 83.6%.

Positive Evaluation of Preventive Measures Such as Addressing Disappearing Sellers and Fake Invoices

The report gave a positive evaluation of the preventive measures Naver has introduced to reduce the occurrence of disputes.

Starting in 2025, Naver has been implementing measures such as △strengthening sanctions against sellers who go offline △automating penalties for false shipping invoices △and imposing sanctions on overseas shipments disguised as domestic shipments.

The research team analyzed that most disputes are related to sellers becoming uncontactable or refusing to complete transactions, and that the difficulty of resolving them varies depending on the transaction amount, product category, and the channel through which the dispute was filed.

However, they pointed out that since actual disputes involve a complex interplay of factors—such as whether the buyer simply changed their mind, whether the product was opened, whether pickup was completed, whether the seller responded, and whether supporting evidence was secured—it is difficult to evaluate resolution performance based on a single criterion.

Accordingly, they recommended that dispute evaluation criteria and methods be further refined and sophisticated.

Proposal for “Multidimensional Classification” of Dispute Types

The research team assessed that the Naver Dispute Mediation Center has achieved relatively swift resolutions even for disputes that have already occurred.

At the same time, they proposed a new classification system that categorizes factors such as △seller response △buyer requests △cause of the dispute △detailed issues in a multidimensional manner.

They explained that restructuring existing dispute types and resolution outcomes and introducing a multiple-choice approach would allow for a more sophisticated explanation of the causes of disputes and enable the use of this information in future response policies.

Based on an analysis of their own data, the research team recommended continuously refining the preventive system while also expanding cross-verification and collaboration with external consumer counseling centers.

They argued that this would enable the establishment of an “early warning system” capable of detecting surges in specific types of complaints or signs of anomalies at an early stage.

“Structural Limitations of Brokerage Platforms Must Also Be Considered”

The report also pointed out that the fact Naver is an intermediary platform connecting consumers and sellers—rather than a business that sells products directly—constitutes a structural constraint in the dispute resolution process.

However, it assessed that the platform could leverage its strengths by utilizing its accumulated dispute data to develop a more sophisticated classification system and linking it to seller management and consumer protection policies.

Professor Choi Nan-seol-heon of Yonsei University stated, “A comprehensive analysis of Naver’s data, combined with a comparison and review of data from external consumer counseling centers, revealed that Naver’s dispute mediation function is effectively resolving consumer disputes,” adding, “Expanding cooperation with external agencies could serve as a foundation for developing a collaborative self-regulatory model for consumer protection.”

Kwon Heon-young, Chair of Naver’s Self-Regulatory Committee, remarked, “It is significant that the committee directly examined and analyzed the comprehensive dispute data,” adding, “We will continue our efforts to reduce disputes and further enhance the level of user protection.”

Yoo Bong-seok, Naver’s Chief Risk Officer (CRO), said, “We are working to improve our dispute resolution procedures by incorporating the Self-Regulatory Committee’s recommendations and to create a shopping environment where both sellers and buyers can transact with confidence,” adding, “We will continue to implement these improvement recommendations going forward.”