A Seoul court has told 98 Tesla owners they will not get their money back. On October 29, 2026, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed their Tesla FSD refund lawsuit, according to a Reuters report carried on TradingView. The plaintiffs wanted the purchase price of the Full Self-Driving (FSD) option repaid. The court said no.
The ruling lands at an awkward moment for Tesla’s global autonomy pitch. Regulators in Europe keep widening the map, as our coverage of Latvia becoming the tenth EU country to approve Tesla FSD shows. South Korea, by contrast, has spent years as a market where buyers paid for the option and could not use most of it. This analysis walks through what the judges decided, what the vehicles in the case can actually do, and what the verdict means for the hardware, the law, and the next round of disputes.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What the Seoul Central District Court Decided on October 29
Civil Division 30 of the Seoul Central District Court handed down the first-instance judgment. The defendant was Tesla Korea, the local arm of the automaker, not the U.S. parent company. The plaintiffs were Tesla owners who bought the FSD option, and the court dismissed their claims for repayment of what they paid for it.
Judge Kim Seokbeom is named as the presiding judge in the available reports, including coverage from Korean business outlet Edaily, whose headline describes the case as a refund suit over software left unfinished for nine years and notes the 98 owners lost at first instance. That phrase matters. A first-instance loss in Korea is not the end of the road, because plaintiffs can generally appeal to a higher court. The reports reviewed for this article did not say whether the owners will do so.
The headline number is 98 plaintiffs. Multiple reports use that figure, and it matches pretrial coverage of the December 2024 filing. One report gives 89 instead, and that figure remains unconfirmed. We use 98 throughout, and the 89 figure should wait for confirmation from the formal judgment or court docket.
Tesla FSD Refund Lawsuit: The Ruling at a Glance
The table below collects the confirmed details of the Tesla FSD refund lawsuit in one place. Items marked unconfirmed come from a single report or lack a verified source.
| Item | Detail | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Seoul Central District Court, Civil Division 30 | Confirmed |
| Decision date | October 29, 2026 | Confirmed |
| Defendant | Tesla Korea | Confirmed |
| Plaintiffs | 98 Tesla owners who bought the FSD option | Multiple reports (one report says 89, unconfirmed) |
| Lawsuit filed | December 2024 | Confirmed |
| Vehicle purchases | Roughly 2019 to 2022 | Reported |
| Outcome | Claims for repayment of the FSD option price dismissed | Confirmed |
| Presiding judge | Kim Seokbeom | Named in reports |
| FSD price paid | About 9 million to nearly 10 million won, exact contract price not established | Unconfirmed |
Why the Court Said FSD Does Not Mean Level 5 Autonomy
The plaintiffs built their case on a simple reading of the product name. They argued that Tesla represented FSD as driving without driver intervention, and that nine years on, the core capability had never arrived. If a car is sold with Full Self-Driving, the argument goes, it should drive itself.
The court rejected that reading. It found that FSD does not necessarily mean Level 5 autonomous driving, the SAE tier where a vehicle handles every road and condition with no human fallback. That single finding removes the foundation of the refund theory. If the product was never promised as fully driverless, then failing to deliver a fully driverless car cannot count as non-delivery.
Korean daily Seoul Economic Daily framed the ruling in similar terms in its coverage, reporting that the court did not treat FSD as complete self-driving. The framing is important for the whole industry. Marketing names in the driver-assistance space often promise more than the engineering delivers, and a court that separates the label from the legal obligation gives every automaker more room.
An “Indefinite-Term Contract” and the Regulatory Delay Defense
The second pillar of the judgment is the court’s characterization of the deal. It described the FSD purchase as an “indefinite-term contract.” Under that structure, Tesla agreed to provide additional functions over time, subject to technological development and regulatory approval. No delivery date was fixed, so no date was missed.
This is a classic way to defuse a breach claim. A contract without a deadline cannot be in default on day 3,000 if it never promised delivery by day 1,000. Reports on the ruling add that, even where delivery lagged, compliance with domestic and foreign regulations made it hard to place the blame for delay on Tesla Korea alone.
Tesla made nearly the same argument months earlier. At a March 5 hearing, the company’s side said the real obstacle was government regulation and that it had never specified when FSD would arrive. The court, in effect, accepted the structure of that defense. For buyers, the lesson is blunt: an option sold on a promise of future features carries the risk that the future never comes on schedule.
What Owners Already Received: Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and HW3.0 Features
The court did not accept that owners got nothing. It identified two sets of functions already provided: basic Autopilot (AP) and Enhanced Autopilot (EAP). It also cited additional capabilities, namely traffic-light and road-sign recognition and urban automated-driving functions, delivered on some vehicles running Hardware 3.0 (HW3.0).
That distinction weakens any claim of total failure. A refund theory works best when the buyer received zero value. Once a judge counts Autopilot functions and recognition features as partial performance of the same agreement, the claim shifts from whole contract failure to a complaint about pace.
The HW3.0 versus HW4.0 Question
Hardware generation sits underneath the dispute. Reports say the owners pointed to the functionality associated with HW4.0 and argued they did not receive it. The court reasoned that the FSD purchased for their cars concerned what could run on the installed HW3.0 computer. In plain terms, the judges measured Tesla’s duty by the hardware in the owner’s driveway, not by the newest hardware Tesla now ships.
The detail on the HW3.0 and HW4.0 split rests on press summaries rather than the full judgment text, so treat it as reported. Still, it signals how courts may treat the broader hardware-upgrade debate. A buyer who purchased FSD in 2019 to 2022 for a specific compute platform has a harder time claiming the capabilities of a later one.
How the Plaintiffs Built Their Case
The 98 owners filed in December 2024, roughly two years before the verdict. They bought their vehicles over a window of about 2019 to 2022. Their lawyer, Hwang Yoonkoo of Dongin Law Group, argued at the March hearing, as reported by the Asia Business Daily, that the option stays dead weight until the day the car is scrapped, and that selling it amounted to deceiving consumers.
The plaintiffs also challenged how Tesla communicated. They pointed to the FSD announcement on Tesla’s Korean website dating back to 2021, and suggested it served as a makeshift notice rather than a clear disclosure. A consumer-protection frame like this one asks whether a reasonable buyer would understand the limits. The court answered through contract law instead, and that mismatch may explain the loss.
Money was the engine of the suit. Reports describe prices approaching 10 million won, while TechTimes cites roughly 9,043,000 won, about $6,730, as the going price over nearly a decade of sales. The exact contract price for each plaintiff is not established, so the combined sum at stake is also unknown. Multiply any of those figures by 98 owners, though, and the claim reaches hundreds of millions of won.
Tesla Korea’s Defense, From the March Hearing
The Asia Business Daily, in its English-language report on the March 5 hearing, laid out Tesla Korea’s position. The company’s legal team, the law firm Bae, Kim and Lee, argued that the vehicle purchase contract contained no binding promise to supply Level 5 Full Self-Driving by any specific date. It blamed the delay on rules set by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
Tesla Korea also argued that Supervised FSD, which reached Korea in November 2025, fulfilled a significant part of the option. Supervised FSD asks the driver to stay ready to take over at any time and uses an interior camera to check attentiveness. The same report notes that even this version runs only on certain U.S.-built vehicles.
No verified verbatim statement from a named Tesla representative is available for the verdict day. The company’s stance comes from reports of its courtroom arguments, so treat any phrasing here as a summary, not a quote. Whether Tesla Korea issued a public comment after the ruling was not established in the sources we reviewed.
The Hardware and Trade-Law Gap Behind Tesla Full Self-Driving in South Korea
The courtroom story is only half the picture. The other half is physical: which Tesla you own decides whether FSD can run at all. Data in the Asia Business Daily and TechTimes reports shows how narrow the eligible group is.
| Metric | Figure | Source and date |
|---|---|---|
| Teslas sold in Korea in 2025 | 59,916 | Asia Business Daily, March 2026 |
| Of those, U.S.-built vehicles eligible for FSD | 719 (about 1.2%) | Asia Business Daily, March 2026 |
| Teslas registered in Korea at audit date | 229,311 | TechTimes, October 9, 2026 |
| Registered Teslas that can legally run FSD in any form | 47,458 (20.7%) | TechTimes, October 9, 2026 |
| Registered Teslas locked out of FSD | About 79.3% | TechTimes, October 9, 2026 |
| Supervised FSD arrival in Korea | November 2025 | Asia Business Daily, March 2026 |
The two percentages measure different things. The 1.2% figure covers new sales in a single year, while the 20.7% figure covers the whole registered fleet. Both point the same direction. Most Korean Teslas cannot use the feature their owners may have paid for.
Why China-Built Models Are Locked Out
TechTimes explains the split through trade law. Under the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, a vehicle built in the United States that meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is treated as compliant with Korean standards without separate domestic testing. Models like the Model S, Model X and Cybertruck get that treatment. The Korea-China agreement contains no equivalent clause, so Shanghai-built Model 3 and Model Y cars need their own Korean certification before FSD can switch on.
TechTimes adds that the Model Y and Model 3 account for more than 90 percent of Tesla’s Korean sales. That means the product bought by the typical Korean customer is the one that cannot legally run the feature. For another angle on U.S. safety standards and Tesla hardware, see our look at the Cybercab’s 125,000-unit capacity and its FMVSS hardware gap.
Parliament’s Audit: Zero Road Tests and a Certification Pledge
Three weeks before the verdict, South Korea’s National Assembly put the same issues on the record. TechTimes reported on October 9 that Tesla Korea CEO Seo Yeong-deuk committed under oath, at a two-day audit, to formally seek government certification for FSD. That pledge had not been made publicly before.
The same audit produced an uncomfortable admission from the other side. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport had run no independent road-safety tests on FSD, and it concluded that the two versions currently deployed in the country, Supervised FSD and FSD V14 Lite, do not meet domestic safety standards as certified. Because the FTA relies on a manufacturer’s own compliance claim, no Korean agency had tested the software before it reached U.S.-built cars.
Read together, the audit and the verdict tell a consistent story. Regulation is slow, certification has not happened, and the court treated that delay as a reason the contract could not be called broken. For owners, the audit offers a path forward that the courtroom did not. Certification would, if approved, unlock the feature for the locked-out majority.
Timeline: From 2019 Purchases to a 2026 Verdict
The sequence below shows how long the dispute ran and how the pieces fit. All entries come from the reports cited in this article.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| About 2019 to 2022 | Plaintiffs buy Teslas with the FSD option |
| 2021 | Date of the FSD website announcement the plaintiffs later challenged |
| December 2024 | 98 owners file suit against Tesla Korea |
| November 2025 | Supervised FSD introduced in Korea on certain U.S.-built vehicles |
| March 5, 2026 | Hearing at Civil Division 30, Tesla argues regulation caused the delay |
| Early October 2026 | National Assembly audit, Tesla Korea CEO pledges to seek certification |
| October 29, 2026 | Court dismisses the refund claims |
Nine years is the number plaintiffs and Korean headlines keep repeating, measured from when Tesla first marketed the option. In that span the product itself changed several times. Our earlier piece on Tesla FSD V14 and the single driver account behind its claimed gains shows how much of the progress story still rests on anecdote rather than audited data.
How Korea Compares With Tesla FSD Elsewhere
Korea sits at the restrictive end of a very uneven global map. In Europe, country-by-country approvals are accumulating. We covered the wait for an EU vote in Slovakia, where Tesla owners await an EU vote with 15 of 27 members in the picture, and the contrast with Seoul is stark.
China presents a different problem, since Tesla builds many of its Korean-market cars there. Our report on Tesla’s China FSD pricing and the unsupervised approval hurdle shows that even in the country of manufacture, unsupervised approval remains hard.
We do not have verified details on comparable refund suits in the United States, China or Australia, such as case names, filing dates or outcomes. Rather than guess, we leave those comparisons out. What the Seoul case does show is a template: a court looks first at what the contract promised and when, and only then at what the marketing implied.
Market Impact for Tesla and Other Automakers
For Tesla, the verdict removes a headline liability in a mid-sized market. Korea’s registered Tesla fleet stands at 229,311 vehicles, and a loss would have set a precedent that thousands of other FSD buyers could cite. A win for the automaker closes that door for now, at least until an appeals court weighs in.
The financial exposure was never the whole story. Tesla’s software narrative depends on FSD revenue. Our analysis of why the 1.74 million FSD count hides a $1 billion run-rate gap points to a gap between the headline count and the revenue run-rate, a tension between units sold and value delivered that echoes the Seoul plaintiffs’ complaint.
Other automakers watch rulings like this closely. Driver-assistance branding across the industry leans on aspirational names. A court that reads the legal duty from the contract instead of the label lowers the legal risk of those names, though it does nothing for brand trust. For ongoing coverage of the chips, sensors and compute behind these systems, see our hardware category page.
What Buyers Should Check Before Paying for a Driver-Assist Option
The practical takeaway reaches well beyond Tesla. If a courtroom treats an option as an open-ended promise, buyers carry the timing risk. Before paying thousands for a software feature, check four things.
- Where the car was built, and whether that country has a mutual recognition deal with your market.
- Which computer hardware sits in the car today, since the court tied duty to installed hardware.
- Whether the written contract states a delivery date or only says features arrive as technology and regulation allow.
- Whether the feature is supervised, which means you stay responsible for the drive at all times.
Korean owners who bought between 2019 and 2022 had little of this information in hand. The ruling suggests that after the fact, the contract language, not the sales pitch, decides who wins.
Five Predictions After the Seoul Ruling
These are analyst expectations, not reported facts. They rest on the confirmed details above.
- An appeal looks likely. The ruling was a first-instance judgment, and a group of 98 plaintiffs with a dedicated law firm has reason to test the contract reading on appeal. No appeal had been confirmed in the reports reviewed.
- Certification will matter more than any verdict. The Tesla Korea CEO pledged under oath to seek approval, so the real news may arrive from the transport ministry, not the courtroom.
- Contract wording will tighten. Expect more explicit delivery language, or more explicit disclaimers, in FSD purchase agreements across markets that read this case.
- Hardware generation will become a sales and legal category. The HW3.0 versus HW4.0 split in this case invites future arguments about what an older car is owed.
- Other regulators will lean on the audit findings. A ministry that admits zero independent road tests invites calls for a testing regime, which could slow or speed approvals depending on the outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who ruled on the Tesla FSD refund lawsuit in Seoul?
Civil Division 30 of the Seoul Central District Court, with Kim Seokbeom named as presiding judge in the available reports. It ruled on October 29, 2026.
How many Tesla owners sued Tesla Korea?
Multiple reports say 98 owners. One report gives 89, and that figure is unconfirmed. They filed in December 2024.
Why did the court dismiss the claims?
The court found that FSD does not necessarily mean Level 5 autonomous driving. It described the purchase as an indefinite-term contract under which extra functions arrive subject to technological development and regulatory approval, and it pointed to Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and HW3.0 features that owners already received.
How much did the FSD option cost in Korea?
The exact contract price for all plaintiffs is not established. Reports mention prices approaching 10 million won, and TechTimes cites roughly 9,043,000 won, about $6,730.
Can Tesla owners in South Korea use FSD today?
Only some can. TechTimes reports that 47,458 of 229,311 registered Teslas, or 20.7 percent, can legally run FSD in any form, mainly U.S.-built models. China-built Model 3 and Model Y cars are locked out until they get Korean certification.
Can the plaintiffs appeal?
This was a first-instance ruling, which in Korea generally leaves room for an appeal. None of the reports we reviewed confirmed whether the owners will file one.
Did Tesla comment on the verdict?
No verified on-record statement from a named Tesla representative is available. Tesla’s known position comes from reports of its March hearing arguments, where it blamed government regulation and said it never specified a delivery date.
