Taiwanese Tourist Challenges 690,800 Won Seoul Taxi Overcharge Claim

A Taiwanese tourist is challenging a 690,800 won taxi payment after taking an Uber-arranged ride from Seoul to Incheon International Airport, in a case that has drawn attention as a Seoul taxi overcharge allegation. The tourist said the expected app fare was about 70,800 won, but a separate card-terminal payment at the airport brought the disputed total to nearly ten times that amount.¹

The reported ride began in eastern Seoul and ended at Incheon International Airport, with several Korean outlets identifying the departure point as Seoul’s Gwangjin District and the destination as Terminal 2.² The tourist later pursued a refund process through the card company and Uber after returning to Taiwan.³

Taiwanese Tourist Taxi Fare Dispute

The Korea Times reported on July 2, 2026, that the tourist had used Uber and expected a fare of about 70,800 won before alleging that the driver demanded a separate card payment after arrival at the airport. The charged amount was reported as 690,800 won, or about $445.¹

AsiaToday reported that the tourist changed the destination in the app during the ride, and that the driver later requested an additional payment through a card terminal at the airport. The same report said Uber later told the tourist, in a customer-service response, that it had confirmed with the driver that an on-site charge had been made.²

The tourist’s social media post, as reported by The Korea Times, warned others: “Do not take a taxi unless you are prepared to pay 690,800 won ($445) for taxi fare.”¹ The statement reflected the tourist’s allegation and frustration, but the refund process was still being handled through the relevant payment and platform channels in the reports.

Weekly Chosun reported on July 1, 2026, that the tourist had filed a card dispute after returning to Taiwan and was waiting for procedures through the card company and Uber. The outlet also reported that the ordinary taxi fare for the route, including tolls, is generally around 70,000 won, far below the disputed 690,800 won payment.³

Platform Response And Refund Process

The available reports describe the case as a disputed payment rather than a completed enforcement decision. AsiaToday said Uber informed the tourist that the driver had acknowledged the on-site charge and intended to refund it once the platform fare was completed.² The reports did not state that a final refund had already been completed.

Seoul Economic Daily, carried by Daum, reported that the driver was said to have explained the disputed payment as the result of an extra zero entered during card processing.⁴ That explanation has been reported as part of the case, while the tourist’s challenge continued through card and platform procedures.

Channel A also covered the incident in a subtitle-news segment, reporting that the Taiwanese tourist disclosed the taxi driver’s vehicle number, face, and other identifying information after claiming a 690,000 won double charge. The outlet identified the route as Seoul’s Gwangjin District to Incheon International Airport.⁵

The tourist’s later comments, as reported by Weekly Chosun, suggested that the incident did not alter their broader view of Korea. The outlet quoted the tourist as saying, “This incident has not changed my feelings toward Korea.”³ That remark placed the complaint on the specific payment dispute rather than a wider rejection of travel in the country.

Taxi Complaints And Foreign Visitors

The case has also been reported against a wider backdrop of foreign-tourist taxi complaints and rising visitor numbers. Seoul Economic Daily, carried by Daum, cited Korea Tourism Organization figures showing 2,027,860 foreign visitors in April 2026, including 192,854 from Taiwan.⁴

The Seoul Metropolitan Government had already announced measures aimed at foreign tourists’ taxi-related complaints in July 2025. The city said it introduced a QR survey and reporting method for issues such as overcharging, ride refusal, and meter non-use, and that QR cards were being distributed at Incheon and Gimpo airport departure areas.⁶

The city also said foreign-tourist reports would be linked with business-vehicle enforcement systems, and that a dedicated enforcement team was operating at airports and major tourist districts.⁶ Those measures were presented as part of a broader effort to respond to taxi inconvenience reports affecting overseas visitors.

The disputed 690,800 won payment remains notable because the reported expected fare and ordinary route fare were both around 70,000 won, while the tourist’s challenged payment was nearly ten times higher. The available source material shows that the tourist filed a card dispute and that Uber communicated with the driver about the on-site charge, but it does not show a final public resolution of the case.

For now, the incident stands as a documented Seoul taxi overcharge allegation involving a Taiwanese visitor, an airport-bound ride, a disputed card-terminal payment, and refund procedures through the card company and Uber.

About the Author

Cloi Lee

Author

View All Posts