As delivery apps have become a core infrastructure of the food service industry, consumer convenience has been maximized, but structural challenges lie behind this, such as the high actual fee burden borne by small business owners and deepening platform dependency.
Executive Summary
-
As of 2026, while the 'differential fee system' of the three major delivery apps has fully taken root to establish a superficial framework for mutual growth, pointed critiques remain that the actual fee burden felt by small businesses still lingers at the threshold of undermining profitability.
-
As a result of cross-analyzing the 'Delivery Platform Mutual Growth Index' announced by the Seoul Metropolitan Government in 2025 and local government surveys, it was confirmed that the upper limit of the 'effective burden rate' for partner stores, combining brokerage fees, payment processing fees, and advertising costs, reaches the level of 29.3%. Furthermore, according to KBR's own analysis synthesizing various public statistics and field interviews, it is understood that the actual costs perceived by many small business owners generally reach the early-to-mid 20% range of their sales.
-
Based on disclosed fee guidelines and industry explanations, it is understood that as of 2026, Baemin and Coupang Eats operate differential tiers such as approximately 7.8% for the top sales bracket, 6.8% for the middle bracket, and 2.0% for the bottom 20% of micro stores. Yogiyo operates subdivided differential rates, such as a base 9.7% (with a minimum of 4.7% when conditions are met). However, the increase in delivery fees borne by merchants and the bloody competition for indispensable top-exposure advertising costs are creating a so-called 'balloon effect' that largely offsets the rate-cutting effect of nominal commission rates.
-
Amid deepening structural dependency where the proportion of delivery sales reaches about half of total sales, the Fair Trade Commission's corrective recommendation to 'impose fees based on pre-discount prices' (Oct 2025) and Coupang Eats' introduction of a '6.8% packaging fee' (Apr 2026) are acting as new explosive triggers for profit-sharing conflicts between platforms and partner stores.
-
Corporate executives and policymakers should guard against the side effects of direct price controls like simple rate caps, while strategically focusing on 'stabilizing the ecosystem's profit structure' by securing transparency in fee calculation and exposure algorithms, and diversifying sales channels such as public delivery apps and proprietary malls (D2C).
1. The Current Status of the 2026 Delivery Platform Ecosystem and the Dilemma of 'Mutual Growth'
As of March 2026, South Korea's food service industry and small business market are passing through a critical structural inflection point and experiencing intense growing pains.
With the differential fee system—introduced after grueling negotiations by the government-led 'Delivery Platform Mutual Growth Consultative Body' last year—being fully applied to the market, a trajectory of mutual growth between giant platforms and micro partner stores superficially appears to have been established.
The previously applied uniform single brokerage commission rate system has been subdivided according to a company's sales scale and market position, and platform operators emphasize that the financial burden on micro small business owners has been drastically reduced based on this.
However, as the KBR Research Team tracked actual market reactions based on field data, the direction pointed to by macroeconomic indicators and the subjective temperature on the ground by individual self-employed persons were found to diverge thoroughly.
Even if total sales volume is maintained or slightly increased, the net profit actually captured in bank accounts remains stagnant or even experiences reverse growth, a so-called 'profitability lag phenomenon' that is widely detected in commercial districts nationwide.
To identify the causes of this phenomenon, we comprehensively cross-analyzed the latest public data, including government public data, the Fair Trade Commission's terms and conditions review results, and the delivery platform mutual growth index announced by Seoul. As a result, the unique complex profit-sharing structure of the delivery ecosystem—which prevents nominal fee reductions from directly translating into actual cost reductions for partner stores—was pointed out as one of the key causes.
This KBR Analysis report anatomizes with data the substantive scale of delivery app fees and the unfolding patterns of financial pressure faced by small businesses as of 2026, and based on this, deeply presents core facts and insights that corporate executives and policymakers should reflect in practical decision-making.
2. Market Dominance and Dependency: The Power of Digital Infrastructure Controlling a 40 Trillion Won Market
Before discussing the flip side of the fee structure, it is necessary to understand the structural background of why partner stores do not easily leave the delivery app ecosystem despite enduring high cost pressures.
The most powerful economic moats in a platform business stem from high 'switching costs' and the 'network effect,' where utility increases as more participants join.
According to Statistics Korea's Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), online food delivery transaction values were tallied at KRW 37.6284 trillion for January to November 2024, and it was strongly projected that annual cumulative figures would exceed KRW 40 trillion.
As online food delivery transaction values settled in the range of KRW 37 trillion to 40 trillion as of 2024, their share of the entire food service market also well exceeded the 20% range. This proves that delivery apps have gone beyond simple order intermediation or being an auxiliary channel replacing flyers, solidifying their position as a massive 'core digital infrastructure' controlling the cash flow of South Korea's food service industry as a whole.
Amid this macroeconomic expansion, platform dependency in the field appears even more dramatically.
According to various economic organizations and industrial surveys, it is repeatedly reported that the proportion of delivery apps in total sales of small businesses using delivery apps averages around half. In particular, for delivery sales-specialized sectors such as pizza, chicken, Chinese cuisine, and late-night snacks, testimonies that this proportion approaches or even exceeds 70% are consistently confirmed in the field.
This implies that for small business owners, giving up or leaving the delivery app channel has reached a state of absolute dependency where it immediately means a halved revenue, and furthermore, a crisis of business closure where fixed costs cannot be met.
The oligopolistic position unique to the two-sided market holding consumers as demand and restaurants as supply simultaneously acts as a fundamental source of power that puts platform operators in an overwhelming negotiating advantage over partner stores when establishing fee policies and exposure algorithms.
3. In-Depth Anatomy of the Fee Structure: The Illusion of Nominal Differential Rates and the Truth of the 'Effective Burden Rate'
In the current delivery app ecosystem, the costs that small business owners must pay to platforms do not end with a single 'brokerage fee' item.
To accurately grasp the physical scale of actual delivery app fees and the degree of profitability damage, we must three-dimensionally decompose the multi-layered 'triple billing system' leading to basic brokerage fees, payment processing fees charged under the name of Electronic Payment Gateway (PG), and advertising costs (promotion costs) that must be spent to expose stores at the top of customer app screens.
① Settlement of the Differential Fee System and the Subtile Balloon Effect
Based on disclosed fee guidelines and industry explanations, it is understood that Baemin and Coupang Eats, which occupy an absolute majority of the market as of 2026, operate differential brackets applying brokerage fees of approximately 7.8% to businesses in the top sales bracket, 6.8% to the middle bracket, and 2.0% to micro stores in the bottom 20% of sales.
Yogiyo, the third-largest market player, is also operating a differential rate (up to the 12% range) that drops from a base 9.7% to a minimum of 4.7% when conditions are met. Looking solely at external numbers, rates as low as 2.0% or 4.7% have ample room to be interpreted as positive and forward-looking measures that significantly relieve micro small business owners.
However, the trap pointed out by market experts lies in the baseline criteria of brackets and the technique of cost shifting. Except for some micro stores belonging to the bottom 20% bracket, the majority of mid-sized food service businesses that effectively conduct meaningful business activities and create employment within commercial districts still bear brokerage commission rates of 6.8% to 7.8% or higher.
Above all, the most critical problem felt in the field is that the delivery fee per order borne by store owners as a counter-value to the reduction in commission rates has risen by about 200 to 500 won compared to the past.
For micro store owners whose sales scale is relatively small and profit per order is thin, a financial paradox occurs where the fixed-amount increased delivery fee burden damages profitability faster and sharper than the percentage (%) reduced brokerage fee savings (amounting to several hundred won). This is a typical 'balloon effect' where pressing down on commissions causes delivery fees to pop up.
② Perceived Effective Burden Rate: Structural Pressure Reaching the Mid-20% Range
This unbridgeable gap between nominal commission rates and perceived commissions in the field is also clearly proven through objective data from public institutions.
According to the 'Delivery Platform Mutual Growth Index' announced by the Seoul Metropolitan Government in 2025 after an in-depth survey, the total utilization fee rate relative to sales (including general costs such as brokerage fees, advertising fees, and payment processing fees) for partner stores across four domestic delivery platforms started at 16.9% and showed a wide distribution soaring up to a maximum of 29.3%.
In addition, according to our internal analysis model derived by synthesizing Seoul city and other local government surveys, publicly disclosed media data, and in-depth field interviews, it is estimated that when various direct and indirect costs are aggregated, the effective burden rate perceived by many small business owners generally reaches the low-to-mid 20% range of their sales.
Considering the typical operating profit margin of the food service industry, this is a major indicator suggesting that a substantial portion of profits is being transferred to platform infrastructure maintenance costs.
4. Microeconomic Simulation: Breakdown of a 20,000 Won Transaction and Small Business Marginal Profit Rate
It is necessary to examine three-dimensionally, by substituting into the cost structure of the frontline field, how a cost structure where more than 20% of total sales leaks out as platform maintenance costs concretely impacts the financial statements of individual stores.
The KBR Research Team deployed a hypothetical simulation model of a '20,000 won chicken delivery order' constructed based on field interviews and market average unit prices.
The moment a customer pays 20,000 won through the app, meticulous and immediate cost deductions begin in the store owner's virtual ledger.
First, the middle-bracket brokerage fee (about 1,360 won when applying 6.8%) is deducted, followed by online card payment processing fees (around 600 won). Here, the delivery agency fee basically set to be borne by the store owner (about 1,500 won) is deducted primarily.
Expenditures do not stop here. To catch the customer's eye and induce actual order conversion in the limited UI environment of delivery apps where hundreds or thousands of chicken restaurants compete, spending on fixed-fee advertising or cost-per-click (CPC) advertising paid monthly is essential to maintain business.
Conservatively converting the monthly platform advertising costs of several hundred thousand won spent by field small business owners per individual order, about 800 to 1,000 won is captured as additional expenditure.
Ultimately, the total sum of various costs paid directly and indirectly by store owners to use the platform's digital infrastructure and delivery network well exceeds the mid-4,000 won range.
As a result, a cost structure is formed where platform-related costs reach the mid-to-high 20% range of the total order amount (sales).
After excluding all raw material costs (about 8,000 to 9,000 won) such as meat and frying oil which have soared due to global inflation and climate change from the remaining amount around 15,000 won, packaging subsidiary material costs (about 1,500 won), and the apportioned amounts of continuously rising rent, labor costs, and utility expenses (about 4,000 won), the net operating profit actually placed in the store owner's hands shrinks below the 1,000 to 2,000 won range, and depending on the situation, there is even a lingering risk of negative margins where labor costs cannot be covered.
This is premised on the fact that this is not an absolute representative case of a specific store, but a hypothesis-based simulation model established to explain the cost and expenditure structure of small business owners within the delivery app ecosystem.
Nevertheless, this model vividly shows the 'asymmetry of profits' where the added value of the delivery market is concentrated into platform ecosystem maintenance costs amid a structure where consumers pay high dining-out prices in an era of high inflation, and small business owners struggle to create profits despite long hours of labor.
5. FTC Sanctions and Introduction of Packaging Fees: Conflicts in Collection Methods Surrounding Expansion of Domains
Amid these financial pressures, going beyond simple rate highs and lows, the issue of fairness in rules surrounding 'how and from what basis' platform operators collect fees emerged as the hottest issue in the 2026 delivery ecosystem. One-sided terms and conditions operations based on overwhelming market share ultimately invited full-scale intervention by regulatory authorities.
① Controversy Over 'Pre-Discount Price' Fee Collection and the FTC's Hammer
In October 2025, the Fair Trade Commission conducted a terms and conditions review against major delivery apps such as Baemin and Coupang Eats and issued corrective recommendations.
The core issue uncovered was terms and conditions clauses where platforms charged brokerage fees based on 'pre-discount original prices' rather than actual payment amounts, even though store owners sold food at a discount for their own marketing or inventory clearance.
For example, suppose that due to fierce competition in a commercial district, a store owner issued a 5,000 won discount coupon at their own expense and sold 20,000 won worth of food for 15,000 won.
According to reasonable commercial practices and basic principles of civil law, brokerage fees should be reasonably calculated based on the store owner's final actual sales amount of 15,000 won.
However, it was confirmed that some platforms had collected fees based on the regular price of 20,000 won based on arbitrary interpretations of terms and conditions.
Such sanction measures by the FTC are milestone events clearly showing that the delivery app fee controversy has moved beyond the simple 'percentage (%) rate cut' debate into a stage of 'structural correction of unfair practices' where platforms maximize profits using unfair calculation criteria backed by superior positions.
② Arrival of 'Packaging Fees' Charging Even Offline Movement and Resistance
In addition, the expansion of the platform's monetization domain is targeting beyond online delivery brokerage into the offline pickup market.
Starting in April 2026, Coupang Eats finalized a policy to charge a brokerage fee of 6.8% (excluding VAT) on the food price for 'packaging orders' across most stores, excluding some exceptions such as traditional markets or sales-bracketed mutual growth fee stores.
The platform side expresses its position that this is an inevitable measure to continuously protect micro business owners such as mutual growth fee stores and stably maintain advanced IT service infrastructure. The logic is that identical resources are poured into app maintenance and payment system support.
However, considering that packaging order brokerage had been maintained for a long time as a free fee policy for the purpose of attracting new customers to the platform and promoting mutual growth with partner stores, frontline backlash is fierce.
As even offline packaging sales—which partner stores exhausted by delivery fees induced by providing direct discounts to customers to save on delivery agency fees—are incorporated into the platform's billing domain, criticisms arise that the final escape route capable of preserving profits has narrowed.
As platforms monetize even the physical movement where consumers walk directly to stores to pick up food, cost resistance by self-employed persons is once again testing its threshold.
6. Policy Dilemmas and Alternative Models: Side Effects of Price Controls and Promotion of Platform Competition
As the cost structure deteriorates beyond control, strong direct market intervention cards such as a 'fee ceiling system'—which legally binds total delivery app fees within a certain percentage per order—are frequently being mentioned among political circles and parts of the government.
However, from an economic perspective, cautious arguments remain strong that artificial price controls in a complex multi-sided platform market can always accompany unexpected market distortions.
① Paradox of the Ceiling System: Scenarios of Market Shrinkage
According to economic simulation research by Professor Lee Yu-seok's team at Dongguk University, it was predicted that if a uniform fee ceiling system alone is introduced to the market, platform companies will drastically reduce consumer-targeted marketing costs and discount coupon issuances to defend profitability. Due to this, it was analyzed that total sales of the entire food service industry would evaporate by about KRW 2.5 trillion in the short term.
Furthermore, considering the ripple effects of completely suspending even free delivery service promotions that platforms maintain while enduring bleeding, the possibility that the sales reduction scale of the entire market could expand to an out-of-control state of up to KRW 7.8 trillion was presented through simulation research by Professor Lee Yu-seok's team at Dongguk University.
Academia warned of the risk of typical side effects where, trying to relieve the costs of micro small business owners, one instead drastically shrinks the transaction pie of the ecosystem itself. Cases where fee ceilings implemented in some US states in the past led to soaring delivery costs and plunges in order volumes also support these concerns.
② Clues to Alternatives: Activation of Public Delivery Apps and Creation of Effective Competition
Therefore, voices are gaining persuasive power that the clues to realistic and sustainable alternatives should be found in 'promoting effective competition' through fostering alternative channels rather than artificial price controls.
According to data released by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, while brokerage commissions of private delivery apps are currently operated at levels in the 2% to 9.7% range, local government-supported regional public delivery apps maintain drastically low-rate fee systems at the 0% to 2% level.
An empirical indicator worth noting is that, in some local government surveys, in regions where public delivery apps secured a certain level of market share through local currency linkage, responses were also reported that partner stores 'perceived an effect of saving about 10% in commissions' compared to using private apps exclusively.
Inherent limitations such as local government budget support injecting massive taxes and weaknesses in UI/UX competitiveness relatively lacking compared to private counterparts certainly exist.
Nevertheless, this suggests that the existence of substantial substitutes capable of checking giant oligopolistic platforms—namely, 'effective competition among platforms'—can be one of the most market-friendly catalysts capable of forcing voluntary fee cuts within the ecosystem.
7. Conclusion and KBR Management Insights
Data penetrating South Korea's delivery app market in 2026 demands a cold and objective management analysis from corporate executives, small business owners, and national policymakers alike.
Delivery app fees are no longer marketing variable costs executed selectively to generate additional sales. They have completely changed their constitution into 'digital rent,' an inescapable fixed cost that stores must essentially pay to access and survive in the digital age.
Rather than being relieved by nominal reduction figures on the superficial differential fee rate table, one must comprehensively track how the effective burden rate (Take Rate) encroaches upon store owners' profits within the overall cost structure.
1) Suggestions for Small Business and Food Service Management A meticulous channel mix strategy to lower absolute sales dependency on a single giant platform is the top priority for corporate survival.
By securing a database of regular customers, they should actively induce them to proprietary malls (D2C) with low commissions, direct phone orders, or regional public delivery apps.
Building a lock-in system that translates indirect costs that would have been paid to platforms into consumer benefits (rewards, increased portions, etc.) is essential. Furthermore, a redesign of sophisticated pricing strategies by menu that accurately reflects multi-layered costs charged by platforms as cost elements is required.
2) Suggestions for Top Management of Delivery Platform Enterprises A strategy mired in maximizing short-term operating profit to achieve the parent company's financial performance can hinder long-term growth. As confirmed in the FTC terms and conditions corrective recommendations, the abuse of excessive billing models that partner stores cannot accept or one-sided policy changes carry the risk of inviting stern sanctions from regulatory authorities.
Furthermore, this can lead to a successive exodus of small business owners who are content suppliers of the ecosystem, threatening the survival foundation of the platform itself. Success in a sustainable platform business must find its answer not in commission rate hikes, but in the top-line co-growth of partner companies through overwhelming logistics efficiency and data utilization.
3) Suggestions for National Policymakers and Regulatory Authorities
We must guard against the shockwaves of uniform price controls (fee ceilings) that can undermine market dynamics. Instead, to resolve information asymmetry, we must reform transparent disclosure systems for search exposure algorithms and fee calculation criteria, and elevate a regular monitoring system against abuses of superior positions by platforms.
Mid- to long-term, we must focus on policy innovation to create fair competition infrastructure, such as guaranteeing data portability so that entry barriers blocking new private platform market entrants are lowered and public delivery apps can secure competitiveness through open innovation.
Data shows without addition or subtraction the structural skewness phenomenon of the market. The upper limit of the effective burden rate reaching up to 29.3% confirmed in the Seoul city survey, and the perceived cost structure of many self-employed persons estimated in the low-to-mid 20% range, throw heavy tasks to the Korean economy.
If we fail to seek structural alternatives where the massive economic benefits created by platform innovation can be distributed more rationally to ecosystem participants, the foundation of the neighborhood commercial districts supporting the 40-trillion-won food service market may have its sustainability threatened. This can be interpreted as one of the most meaningful financial warning lights currently turned on for our real economy.
KBR Access
KBR Analysis 콘텐츠는 Premium 전용 콘텐츠입니다
이 콘텐츠는 Premium 회원에게 제공되는 프리미엄 콘텐츠입니다. Premium은 1개월 이용권 34,900원 또는 월 정기결제 29,900원이며, 결제 시 1개월 이용권(1회 결제·자동갱신 없음) 또는 월 정기결제(매월 자동결제)를 선택할 수 있습니다. ESG, KBR 아티클, KBR Analysis 등 핵심 프리미엄 콘텐츠를 열람할 수 있습니다.
이번 달 열람 현황: 0 / 0건 사용