Kim & Chang

Kim & Chang

Sector knowledge
Show options

South Korea

News and developments

Implications of Statutory Adoption of Attorney-Client Privilege for KFTC Investigations

On January 29, 2026, the National Assembly passed a landmark amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act, formally establishing statutory protection for confidential communications between legal counsel and their clients (attorney-client privilege). Attorney-client privilege is a well-established right in common-law jurisdictions, shielding confidential communications made for the purpose of seeking legal advice from compelled disclosure. In Korea, like in most civil law countries, this right was not fully acknowledged because of the lack of statutory basis, but the passage of this amendment now officially codifies attorney-client privilege as a protected right within the Korean legal framework. The introduction of attorney-client privilege further strengthens the right of companies to receive assistance from their counsel and to defend themselves in criminal procedures (e.g., search and seizures) and administrative investigations, which is expected to bring various changes in the investigation procedures and practices of investigative agencies. In particular, attorney-client privilege will enable companies to better resolve issues arising from on-site investigations by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) or search and seizures by investigative agencies on charges of violating fair trade-related laws and regulations, including the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA”). Key Details of Amended Attorney-at-Law Act Prior to the amendment, the lack of statutory basis for attorney-client privilege had made it practically very difficult for attorneys to defend clients (companies or individuals) when an investigative agency requested access to or seized the details of correspondence with counsel regarding legal advice. In April 2023, the KFTC amended the Rules on KFTC Investigation Procedures (KFTC Notice No. 2023-11) to add Article 11 (2), which provides that compliance departments should generally be excluded from the scope of investigations, subject to certain exceptions. However, as these rules are merely internal procedures, they were insufficient to fully safeguard attorney-client privilege and the defense rights of investigated parties. The amendment adds new provisions to expressly codify attorney-client privilege, notably: (i) Article 26-2 (1), allowing non-disclosure of confidential communications exchanged between an attorney and his/her client for the purpose of seeking or providing legal assistance, and (ii) Article 26-2 (2), allowing non-disclosure of documents or materials that were prepared by an attorney for litigation, investigation or inquiry. Implications of Attorney-Client Privilege for Future Investigations by KFTC and Other Agencies The precise scope of attorney-client privilege under the recent amendment will likely be a subject of ongoing discussion. Below, we summarize what we currently expect to be its implications for administrative investigations by the KFTC and similar authorities. During onsite investigations, companies are expected to be able to more proactively request the protection of materials held by their legal and compliance departments and other attorney-client privilege-covered documents. In the past, regulators have at times requested and gathered legal review materials prepared by legal and compliance teams during administrative investigations, and documents drafted solely for legal assessment for compliance purposes have sometimes been misinterpreted or used as evidence of violations or awareness of such violations. The introduction of attorney-client privilege should now help protect many of these materials from disclosure. The codification of attorney-client privilege is expected to transform how companies manage internal risk. Previously, many firms were hesitant to conduct thorough compliance audits or pre-inspections, fearing that the resulting documentation and legal advice could be seized and used against them in future investigations. With attorney-client privilege now protecting attorney communications, legal advice and compliance outcomes, companies can now proactively monitor their compliance status and prevent violations with greater confidence. This legal foundation encourages a more rigorous and active review of pending legal risks by counsel. Effective Utilization of Attorney-Client Privilege Formalize attorney-client privilege labeling: Although the amended law does not take effect until one year after its promulgation, its supplementary provisions extend protection to counsel communications, documents and materials created before that effective date. Accordingly, even in KFTC investigations that take place before the law’s effective date, if privileged materials become subject to investigation/disclosure in the interim, companies may have grounds to request protection based on the amendment’s legislative intent and relevant KFTC procedural rules. To this end, companies should promptly implement formal attorney-client privilege labeling for all attorney communications and ensure to meet attorney-client privilege requirements. Prepare internal guidelines for in-house communications: Currently no concrete standards or court precedents involving attorney-client privilege exist under the amended Attorney-at-Law Act, and it is unclear whether attorney-client privilege will extend to in-house communications. Nevertheless, the Anglo-American interpretive approaches referenced in the amendment suggest that attorney-client privilege may extend to communications with in-house counsel regarding legal advice. Therefore, companies should prepare internal guidelines covering the content and methods of such communications. Keep track of legislative developments: In practice, there still remain a number of outstanding issues, including: (i) the scope of communications protected by attorney-client privilege (e.g., in-house counsels, foreign counsels), (ii) whether attorney-client privilege can apply to communications with attorneys without attorney-client privilege labeling, (iii) the scope of “attorney work-products” that may be withheld, and (iv) the authority, timing and procedure for determining exceptions under Article 26-2 (3) of the amendment. These questions will likely be resolved over time through future interpretations or guidelines issued by the relevant authorities. Accordingly, it will be essential to closely follow legislative developments and official interpretive guidance. Please click on the following link to view the full version of this newsletter (Link) Authors Youngjin JUNG (View Profile) Gene-Oh (Gene) KIM (View Profile) Kyung Min KOH (View Profile) Kee Hong CHUN (View Profile)
18 May 2026

Third Amendment to Korean Commercial Code on Mandatory Treasury Share Cancellation

With the enactment of the third amendment to the Korean Commercial Code (the “KCC”), which generally mandates the cancellation of treasury shares, it is necessary to establish a specific roadmap for the holding, disposal and cancellation of treasury shares. Following (i) the first amendment to the KCC in 2025 introducing, among other things, a fiduciary duty of directors to protect the interests of shareholders, and (ii) the second amendment to the KCC mandating cumulative voting for director elections and increasing the number of audit committee members subject to separate election, on November 25, 2025, the Democratic Party of Korea proposed to the National Assembly a bill to partially amend the KCC, which consolidated various previously proposed bills concerning the mandatory cancellation of treasury shares (Link). Around that time, there had been considerable transactions aiming to dispose of treasury shares, including the issuance of convertible bonds backed by treasury shares, off-hours block trades, over-the-counter transactions and on-exchange disposals. In this context, disclosure regulations concerning listed companies’ holdings of treasury shares and their disposal plans have also been continuously strengthened (Link). On February 23, 2026, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly consolidated and amended 14 existing bills, including the above-mentioned bill, and then proposed/approved the committee’s alternative bill. The National Assembly passed the bill at its plenary session on February 25, 2026, which was promulgated and became effective on March 6, 2026. The key details of the third amendment to the KCC promulgated on March 6, 2026 (the “Amendment”) are as follows: Definition of Treasury Shares as Unissued Shares and Application of Corresponding Restrictions The Amendment defines treasury shares as unissued shares without any rights, thereby legislatively resolving the longstanding debate between the “asset theory” and the “unissued shares theory” regarding the nature of treasury shares. Accordingly, the bill specifies that treasury shares exclude voting rights, preemptive rights and rights to cash dividends and share dividends. It also prohibits (i) issuing bonds convertible into or redeemable with treasury shares, (ii) creating a pledge over treasury shares held by the company, and (iii) allocating split shares to treasury shares in the context of a merger or corporate division. Mandatory Cancellation of Treasury Shares and Exceptions In principle, where a company acquires treasury shares, it must cancel them within one year from the date of acquisition. However, with respect to treasury shares held by the company prior to the Amendment, the company is granted an additional six-month grace period to cancel the treasury shares, allowing the company a total of one year and six months from the effective date to cancel such treasury shares. However, the company may hold or dispose of treasury shares if the articles of incorporation allow it. This is permitted where necessary to achieve business objectives—such as introducing new technology or improving financial structure—or to provide compensation to employees and executives. Any such action must follow a disposal plan approved by the shareholders and signed or sealed by all directors. Such treasury shareholding/disposal plan must be approved by the general meeting of shareholders each year. In Case of Disposal of Treasury Shares, Application by Analogy of Regulations for Issuance of New Shares When a company is exceptionally permitted to dispose of treasury shares upon satisfying the relevant requirements notwithstanding the general cancellation obligation, the Amendment requires disposal on equal terms to each shareholder in proportion to the number of shares held. However, in the case of the exceptions, such as employee/executive compensation and business objectives as outlined in items (2) through (5) of Article 341-4 (2), a company may dispose of treasury shares to other persons who are not shareholders. In addition, when a company disposes of treasury shares, the Amendment generally applies by analogy the procedures for issuance of new shares to the extent consistent with the nature thereof. The Amendment may make it difficult to issue convertible bonds backed by treasury shares or to engage in other financial transactions, such as loans or derivatives, secured by such bonds. In addition, the exceptions to the holding and disposal of treasury shares will be limited as described above. As a result, the Amendment may have a significant impact on companies’ capital structures, shareholder return policies, value-up disclosures and investor relations policies. It may also materially affect strategic investment and financing decisions that have historically assumed the availability of treasury shares. In addition, companies that will be holding their 2026 annual general meetings of shareholders after the promulgation of the Amendment and plan to dispose of treasury shares (e.g., through executive compensation arrangements or sales to third parties) may need to promptly submit to their shareholders agenda the items relating to treasury share holdings, disposal plans and related amendments to their articles of incorporation (with respect to the reasons for third-party allocation to achieve business purposes). Please click on the following link to view the full version of this newsletter (Link). Authors Ji Pyoung KIM (View Profile) Jeremiah N. PHILLIPS (View Profile) Jae Hong JUNG (View Profile) Min Young HAHN (View Profile)
18 May 2026

Recent Regulatory Trends in AI Industry

In November 2025, the Korean government announced the “AI Regulatory Rationalization Roadmap” (the “AI Roadmap”) to lay out the foundation for enhancing national competitiveness in the AI industry. In January 2026, the Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust (the “AI Basic Act”) and its Enforcement Decree officially took effect, and key guidelines were finalized and published. These developments are driving rapid changes in Korea’s AI regulatory environment. AI Roadmap The AI Roadmap announced by the Korean government on November 27, 2025 is the government’s first roadmap for rationalizing regulations in emerging industries. Corporations are encouraged to carefully review each initiative of the AI Roadmap, as doing so will help business operators gauge the direction and focus of the Korean government’s core AI policies. The AI Roadmap identifies four major segments of the AI industry, which are (i) technology development, (ii) service utilization, (iii) infrastructure, and (iv) reliability and security. It also specifies key issues for each segment and provides regulatory rationalization measures for each issue as follows: Technology Development Securing and utilizing AI training data: (i) Establish the “Guidelines on Fair Use for AI Training,” specifying criteria and providing examples for determining fair use under the Copyright Act and consider amendments to relevant statutes after soliciting feedback from stakeholders, and (ii) support transactions regarding AI training data by providing a negotiation framework, etc. Protecting and utilizing AI-generated outputs: Develop examination criteria and application guidelines for industrial property rights (including patent and design rights) relating to AI-generated outputs, and review amendments to the relevant regulations. Infrastructure for various data utilization: Revise various laws/regulations and publish guidelines to promote the utilization of industrial and manufacturing data, synthetic data and pseudonymized data. Expansion of the use of public data: Expand the scope of disclosure of public data by designating and promoting high-value public datasets based on business demand. Service Utilization Mobility and intelligent robot development: Expand the scope of demonstrations of autonomous driving, permit the use of original video data in autonomous-driving development, and ease regulations for the use of outdoor mobile robots. Improvement of administrative efficiency: Improve administrative efficiency by deploying AI in public services. Infrastructure Data centers: Improve uniform regulatory requirements, such as mandatory installation of artwork and elevators in data centers. Reliability and Security Revision of the AI Basic Act: Establish subordinate statutes, notifications and guidelines related to the criteria for identifying high-impact AI under the AI Basic Act and detailed implementation measures. As the regulatory issues and initiatives outlined above are likely to take shape in the future through legal and regulatory reforms and the establishment of guidelines, AI-related companies and investors should carefully analyze how these changes will potentially affect their businesses and services and prepare accordingly. Enforcement of AI Basic Act and Publication of Subordinate Guidelines The AI Basic Act took effect on January 22, 2026, and its Enforcement Decree—together with five guidelines (available in Korean, Link) outlining the key obligations of AI deployers under the AI Basic Act—was also finalized and published. Enforcement Decree of AI Basic Act The revised Enforcement Decree of the AI Basic Act, which took effect concurrently with the AI Basic Act, provides more detailed guidance compared to the initial draft bill for the Enforcement Decree that was pre-announced in November 2025. Notably, the revised Enforcement Decree clarifies the category of AI business operators required to designate a domestic agent as “AI deployers who have been subject to administrative fines for failing to comply with suspension and/or corrective orders issued by the Ministry of Science and ICT (“MSIT”).” Subordinate Guidelines of AI Basic Act Meanwhile, the AI Basic Act guidelines, initially released in September 2025, have been finalized after collecting feedback from stakeholders for approximately four months. Among them, the AI Transparency Guidelines relating to Article 31 of the AI Basic Act underwent the most substantial revisions, as follows: Scope of the obligation to ensure transparency: Clearly provide that the obligation to ensure transparency applies strictly to “AI deployers” and not “users.” Differentiation of labeling obligations by service type: Distinguish between (i) AI-generated outputs provided only within a service environment, and (ii) AI-generated outputs exported outside a service environment through downloading or sharing, while allowing for more flexible labeling in the former case. In addition, the MSIT announced its plan to launch a system improvement task force beginning in February 2026 to continuously review potential improvements and revisions to the AI Basic Act and the applicable guidelines. Therefore, it will be necessary to take into account future amendments and changes to the guidelines. Grace Period for Enforcement under AI Basic Act The MSIT has announced its plans to implement a grace period of at least one year under which enforcement of the AI Basic Act would be suspended, to allow companies to adapt and minimize disruption. During this grace period, fact-finding investigations and the imposition of administrative fines are expected to occur only in exceptional circumstances, such as where serious social issues arise (e.g., fatal accidents or human rights violations). Further, as the MSIT has indicated its plan to collect feedback from stakeholders during the grace period to ensure the reasonable operation of the regulatory system, AI business operators should closely follow related developments. Various legal frameworks in the AI sector will continue to be revised in line with the publicly announced AI Roadmap, and the guidelines and enforcement direction of the AI Basic Act are also expected to change following broad consultation with the public during the grace period. To maintain flexibility, business operators in the relevant sectors should assess the potential risks of their services based on the currently available legal frameworks and keep track of regulatory developments and updates to the AI Basic Act, which will be specified according to the AI Roadmap. Please click on the following link to view the full version of this newsletter (Link). Authors Min Chul PARK (View Profile) Jung-Chull LEE (View Profile) Seong-Hyeon BANG (View Profile) Yu Seok JUNG (View Profile) Han Kyul NAM (View Profile) Eun Do LEE (View Profile) Hyokyung KIM (View Profile)  
18 May 2026

Regulatory Trends on Treasury Stock and Impact on Corporate Governance Restructuring

The amendment to the Korean Commercial Code (the “KCC”) promulgated on September 9, 2025 (the “Second Amendment to the KCC”), which introduced mandatory cumulative voting for large-scale listed companies and expanded the separate appointment of audit committee members, has contributed to the transparency of the board of directors and audit committee operations. In the case of treasury shares, however, there have been persistent claims that they still remain a regulatory blind spot, despite being widely used as a tool to defend management control and to bolster the power of controlling shareholders. In response, the National Assembly (led primarily by the Democratic Party of Korea (the “DPK”)) is now pursuing a third round of amendments to the KCC (the “Third Amendment to the KCC”) and tax laws that would mandate the cancellation of treasury shares and tighten restrictions on their disposal. In parallel with the aim to strengthen disclosure obligations for treasury shares, the financial authorities have recently finalized amendments to relevant regulations, including those in relation to the Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the “FSCMA”) and the Regulations on Issuance and Disclosure of Securities (the “Disclosure Regulations”). These measures to tighten the rules on the cancellation and disposal of treasury shares are expected to have a significant impact on how listed companies utilize treasury shares going forward, and it will be necessary to respond strategically.   Legislative Trends and Practical Considerations Regarding Mandatory Cancellation and Disposal of Treasury Stock Third Amendment to KCC Concerning Procedures for Mandatory Cancellation and Disposal of Treasury Stock While the current KCC allows companies to acquire treasury shares under certain conditions, there have been ongoing debates over the need to amend the KCC to ensure that treasury share acquisitions genuinely function as a means of returning value to shareholders, given that some companies have been taking advantage of treasury shares as a tool to distort corporate governance (for example, by retaining treasury shares for prolonged periods without cancellation or by disposing of them to friendly parties). Commentators have also argued that the benefits of improved corporate governance will be fully realized only when both the fairness of the disposal process and regulations governing the cancellation of treasury shares are ensured. Against this backdrop, after the Second Amendment to the KCC, a number of amendment bills to the KCC and the FSCMA have been submitted to strengthen shareholder return, mandating the cancellation of treasury shares, subject to limited exceptions such as for compensation for officers and employees (Link). In line with this trend, on November 25, 2025, the Third Amendment to the KCC, proposed by National Assembly Member Gi-Hyung Oh, chairman of the KOSPI 5000 Special Committee, was submitted to the National Assembly. This proposed amendment clearly defines the legal nature of treasury shares as “capital,” mandates the cancellation of treasury shares and strengthens the disposal process, while also including the treasury shares held prior to the law’s effective date within the scope of mandatory cancellation. Since the amendment proposals, including the recently introduced bill, continue to aim for passage at the plenary session and promulgation at an early date, followed by immediate effectiveness, companies will need to undertake swift and comprehensive reviews of their corporate financial strategies and their strategies to defend management control.   Legal Nature of Treasury Stock The Third Amendment to the KCC clarifies that a shareholder may not exercise his/her rights as a shareholder, such as voting rights, pre-emptive rights and rights to claim dividends, with respect to treasury shares. Following the clarification of the nature of treasury shares as “capital,” the issuance of bonds exchangeable for, or redeemable in, treasury shares and the establishment of a pledge over treasury shares are categorically prohibited, regardless of the identity of the counterparty (shareholder or non-shareholder) or the purpose of such action (whether business-related or not). Companies are prohibited from allocating new shares to treasury shares in the event of a merger or spin-off.   Mandatory Cancellation of Treasury Shares Scope of Application: Applicable to all companies, including both unlisted companies and listed companies. Time of Cancellation: Treasury shares must be cancelled within one year from the date of acquisition. Handling of Existing Treasury Stock: Treasury shares already held by companies prior to the Third Amendment to the KCC’s effective date—including both (i) treasury stock acquired in the company’s own name and for the company’s own account (the “Existing Treasury Stock Directly Acquired”), and (ii) treasury stock acquired in the name of a trustee and for the company’s account under trust agreements (the “Existing Treasury Stock Indirectly Acquired”)—will equally be governed by the amended provisions. However, a grace period will apply as follows: (i) for the Existing Treasury Stock Directly Acquired, six months, and (ii) for the Existing Treasury Stock Indirectly Acquired, from the effective date of the Third Amendment to the KCC to the date on which the company retrieves the shares from the trustee.   Exceptional Retention and Disposal of Treasury Shares A company may, only in exceptional cases listed below, hold or dispose of its treasury stock upon preparing a treasury stock holding and disposal plan (with the names and seals or signatures of all directors) and obtaining approval from the general meeting of shareholders each year. (i) Disposal to shareholders: Where the shares are disposed of in a way that each shareholder can acquire such shares under equal terms pro rata to the number of held shares. (ii) Retention or disposal to a third party other than shareholders: Where the shares are used (i) to compensate officers and employees, (ii) to implement an employee stock ownership plan, (iii) for a comprehensive share exchange, (iv) for a comprehensive share transfer or merger of shares, or (v) to achieve the management objectives set forth in the articles of incorporation.   Application of Procedures for Issuance of New Shares to Disposal of Treasury Stock In case of disposing of treasury stock to a third party other than shareholders, the board of directors will determine, unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, (i) the type and number of treasury stock to be disposed of, (ii) the disposal price and payment date of treasury stock to be disposed of, and (iii) the counterparty and method of the treasury stock disposal.   Certain provisions governing the issuance of new shares under the KCC shall apply mutatis mutandis to the disposal of treasury shares. (i) Shareholders will have the right to subscribe to the relevant treasury shares at the time of the company’s disposal. (ii) Shareholders may exercise their right to seek an injunction against the company for a disposition that is remarkably unfair.   Regulation on Trust Acquisition by Listed Companies If a listed company acquires treasury shares by means of a trust agreement, the trustee will not dispose of the treasury shares during the term of the trust agreement and will return the treasury shares to the company without delay after the expiration or termination of the trust agreement. The relevant shares will be subject to holding period restrictions, with the date on which the trustee acquires the treasury shares being deemed as the date on which the listed company acquires the treasury shares.   Sanctions In the case of a listed company violating the obligation to cancel treasury shares or the treasury shareholding plan, any individual director of that company will be subject to an administrative fine of up to KRW 50 million. If the Third Amendment to the KCC is enacted and as a result, mandatory cancellation of treasury shares is introduced and the procedures in relation to new-share issuance are applied to treasury share disposals, it will likely become more difficult to utilize treasury shares as a means of maintaining control, facilitating strategic alliances or defending against hostile takeovers. Notably, the codification of shareholder checks and balances (for example, allowing any shareholder holding at least one share to request the company to cease such disposal if the disposal violates laws, the articles of incorporation, or is effected in a substantially unfair manner) may materially affect future decision-making regarding the disposal of treasury stock. The Third Amendment to the KCC provides certain exceptions, such as the use of treasury shares for performance-based compensation to officers and employees, but also tightens the conditions for holding treasury shares. Among other requirements, shareholder approval must now be obtained annually at the general meeting of shareholders. The DPK continues to actively pursue the legislation, evidenced by the introduction of a similar amendment bill in early January 2026. Notwithstanding the transitional measures for treasury shares already held, the amendment is designed to take effect upon promulgation, leaving companies with limited time to adapt in practice. Companies are therefore advised to take into consideration relevant legislative developments while also preparing in advance specific plans for dealing with existing treasury shares (including cancellation). Companies should also thoroughly analyze the legal procedures applicable to the treasury shares they already hold and those they may acquire in the future and proactively develop a systematic response strategy that complies with the strengthened regulatory framework. Meanwhile, since the disposal of treasury stock brings cash into companies, it has traditionally been difficult to establish directors’ breach of trust in such transactions. However, as the Third Amendment to the KCC specifically stipulates directors’ fiduciary duty toward shareholders, directors may be held liable for a breach of trust where an infringement of the shareholder value is recognized. In this context, a recent court decision dismissing an application for a preliminary injunction against the issuance of exchangeable bonds backed by treasury stock clarified that, under the amended KCC, directors’ fiduciary duty is owed to “all shareholders,” rather than to “particular individual shareholders.” This development suggests that, for major board decisions concerning treasury share disposals and similar matters, there will be a heightened need to provide concrete and well-substantiated explanations as to whether such decisions align with the interests of all shareholders, including management and the controlling shareholders.   Proposed Amendment to Tax Laws on Acquisition, Retirement and Disposal of Treasury Stock In parallel with the discussions on the Third Amendment to the KCC, there has been progress in discussions to establish the accounting and legal foundations that would institutionally support the reforms from a tax-policy perspective. Although the acquisition of treasury shares is, in substance, a “capital transaction” that effectively returns capital to shareholders, gaps in current tax laws have meant that the characterization of the seller/transferor’s income as either “dividend income” (deemed dividend) or as “capital gains” has depended on case-by-case judicial interpretation. This has given rise to persistent concerns about reduced tax predictability and incentives for tax avoidance driven by transactional form. Accordingly, amendment bills to the Income Tax Act and the Corporate Tax Act to improve legal consistency have been proposed that would explicitly characterize the acquisition of treasury shares as a “capital transaction.”   Bill No. 2213653 (Proposed by National Assembly Member Gi-Hyung Oh on October 21, 2025): Introduction of taxation on deemed dividends upon sale of treasury stock by a corporation to a share certificate issuer and exclusion of gains and losses on disposal of treasury stock from taxable income or deductible expenses Of the amount of return received by a corporation from the transfer of its treasury shares to a share certificate issuer, the portion in excess of the original acquisition price of such shares will be treated as dividends or distributions (excluding fortuitous trades through the Korea Exchange (the “KRX”)). Gains and losses on disposal of treasury stock realized by a stock certificate issuer will not be included in taxable income or deductible expenses. Bill No. 2213652 (Proposed by National Assembly Member Gi-Hyung Oh on October 21, 2025): Refinement of income classification standards for an individual’s sale of treasury stock of a corporation to a stock certificate issuer As a general rule, gains earned by an individual from the sale of a company’s treasury shares to a stock certificate issuer will be classified as deemed dividends, except where the purchaser happens to become a stock-issuer in the course of trading through an exchange, in which case the gains from the trade would be exceptionally taxed as capital gains.   Strengthening of Disclosure System for Acquisition, Cancellation and Disposal of Treasury Stock Amendment to Enforcement Decree of FSCMA, Disclosure Regulations and Regulations on Capital Markets Investigation (the “Investigation Regulations”) As moves to strengthen substantive legal regulations on treasury shares (such as mandatory cancellation restrictions on their disposal) have gained pace, the need for procedural controls to ensure their effectiveness has also emerged. In particular, as the number of treasury stock acquisitions and cancellations has surged since 2024 and the volume of treasury stock cancellations from January to August 2025 alone exceeded the total volume in 2024, calls have intensified for more granular disclosure requirements and stricter sanctions to enhance market oversight and management transparency. Given this context, the Financial Services Commission (the “FSC”) and the government have finalized amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA, the Disclosure Regulations, and the Investigation Regulations, in order to enhance transparency in the management of treasury shares. Following the approvals by the FSC and the Cabinet in December 2025, these amendments have been promulgated and are now in effect.   Expansion of Subject and Frequency of Disclosure Previous Provisions As of the last day of the most recent fiscal year Retention of treasury shares of 5/100 or more of the total number of issued and outstanding shares Once a year Amended Provisions As of (i) the last day of June from the commencement date of the fiscal year, and (ii) the last day of the most recent fiscal year Retention of treasury shares of at least 1/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares Twice a year   Obligation to Compare the Treasury Stock Treatment Plan and Actual Implementation Status (Newly Inserted) Previous Provisions: n/a Amended Provisions Obligation to disclose a comparison between the acquisition, cancellation and disposal plans set forth in the immediately preceding treasury stock report and the actual acquisition, cancellation and disposal activities during the past six months in the treasury stock report, in the business report and semi‑annual report   Strengthening the Effectiveness of Sanctions for Violation of Disclosure of Treasury Stocks (Newly Inserted) Previous Provisions: n/a Amended Provisions With respect to violations of disclosure obligations relating to the acquisition, holding and disposal of treasury stock, the Investigation Regulations established new standards that specifically address the relevant violations, including a basis for imposing aggravated measures for repeated violations In addition to the imposition of administrative fines, specified measures to restrict the issuance of securities and recommend the dismissal of officers based on the severity of the violation and any mitigating or aggravating factors The financial authorities expect the amendments to serve as an opportunity to encourage listed companies to use treasury shares as a means of returning shareholder value that protects the rights and interests of all shareholders. Meanwhile, under the recent amendment, (i) the range of listed companies required to disclose their treasury stock holding and disposal plans (following a board resolution) in their business reports and similar filings has been substantially expanded, and (ii) the disclosure frequency has been increased to twice a year (the annual business report and the semiannual report). Accordingly, listed companies should proactively determine whether they fall within the expanded disclosure scope and, given that future disclosures will include a comparison between the planned and actual actions in regards to treasury stock, they must exercise great care from the planning stage to ensure consistency and integrity across the entire process from acquisition through disposal.   Amendment to Corporate Disclosure Forms Meanwhile, in response to the surge in the issuance of exchangeable bonds convertible into treasury stock amid the growing momentum toward mandatory treasury stock cancellations, the Financial Supervisory Service (the “FSS”) amended the corporate disclosure forms as follows, effective as of October 20, 2025. Accordingly, companies subject to disclosure obligations are now required to provide detailed information such as the impact on existing shareholders’ profits in their material disclosure reports on the issuance of exchangeable bonds convertible into treasury stock. * When issuing exchangeable bonds convertible into treasury stock, the following items must be specifically disclosed under the “Other Matters to be Considered in Investment Decisions” section of the material disclosure reports for “Issuance of Exchangeable Bonds” and “Disposal of Treasury Stock.” Reason for choosing to issue exchangeable bonds using treasury shares, rather than issuing exchangeable bonds backed by other shareholdings or adopting other financing methods; Details of the review regarding the appropriateness of the timing of the issuance; Effects on the company’s governance structure and decision-making process in the event of an actual exchange of shares; Impact on existing shareholders’ profits, etc.; Plans for any subsequent resale of exchangeable bonds or exchangeable shares after issuance (including details of any pre-arranged agreements); and Name of the arranger (if any) and related details. This revision to the disclosure forms appears intended to (i) strengthen the market’s surveillance function by ensuring that investors are provided with sufficient information, and (ii) encourage companies to make decisions more prudently in accordance with their fiduciary duty to shareholders. As the financial authorities increasingly tighten monitoring and disclosure regulations concerning the disposal routes of treasury shares, companies are expected to face significantly greater practical burdens and risks going forward for financing activities with treasury shares. In response to recent movements in regulation reinforcement, an increasing number of companies are proactively reviewing their potential disposal of treasury shares. Under the revised disclosure regime, companies should be mindful that strict alignment is required between the plans established to dispose of treasury shares and their actual execution. In other words, while swift decision-making remains important, proceeding without careful review can trigger unexpected sanctions or give rise to managerial liability issues under the strengthened disclosure and verification regime. Accordingly, companies should thoroughly plan from the stage of treasury share acquisition, review whether they are in compliance with enhanced disclosure obligations and manage potential risks. Against the backdrop of strengthened shareholder protection and corporate transparency, changes in regulations concerning treasury shares are expanding to encompass not only substantive changes (such as the imposition of mandatory cancellation of treasury shares and the enhancement of fairness in disposal procedures) but also procedural aspects, including the segmentation and refinement of disclosure requirements. Therefore, the evolving regulatory environment, including developments on the Third Amendment to the KCC, will be important for minimizing potential legal risks and developing rational, strategic response measures aligned with a company’s long-term interests. Please click on the following link to view the full version of this newsletter (Link).   Authors Hyeon Deog CHO (View Profile) Jae Ho ROH (View Profile) Teo KIM (View Profile) Yeong-Ik JEON (View Profile) Eun-Young LEE (View Profile) Gun Woo KIM (View Profile) Hakbum AHN (View Profile) Haewoong CHOI (View Profile)
09 March 2026

Supreme Court Affirms Company’s Vicarious Criminal Liability in Trade Secret Misappropriation Case

Key Takeaways The Korean Supreme Court affirmed the vicarious liability of a Taiwanese company for criminal trade secret misappropriation committed by its Korean employees. The decision recognized Korean court’s jurisdiction over the Taiwanese corporation for a crime committed by its Korean employees based on the vicarious liability provisions of the Korean trade secret law. Foreign corporations should exercise stricter duty of due care and supervision over Korean employees recruited from a Korean competitor. 1. Background On August 14, 2025, the Korean Supreme Court upheld a guilty verdict against a Taiwanese corporation indicted on charges of trade secret and industrial technology misappropriation committed by its employees (Supreme Court Decision 2022Do8664). In Korea, the vicarious liability provisions in the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (the “Trade Secret Protection Act”) and the Industrial Technology Act provide that if a corporation's employee commits a criminal act in the course of his or her work – including, without limitation, misappropriation of a third party’s trade secrets or industrial technology – the corporation itself will also be subject to criminal liability unless the corporation can prove that it did not neglect its duty of due care and supervision over its employees to prevent such a criminal act. The specific issue examined in this Supreme Court case was whether a foreign company is subject to the jurisdiction of Korean courts based on crimes committed in Korea by its Korean employees in connection with their work for the company. The defendant Taiwanese corporation in this case (“TaiwaneseCo”) manufactures and sells LEDs in Taiwan. TaiwaneseCo hired Employee A from a competing Korean corporation (“KoreanCo”) in July 2016. In August 2016, Employee A conspired with Employees B and C, who were still employed by KoreanCo at that time, to leak KoreanCo’s trade secrets to TaiwaneseCo. Employees B and C extracted confidential information from KoreanCo in Korea and delivered it to Employee A, who then shared the data with officers and employees of TaiwaneseCo to develop their own products. Employees B and C subsequently joined TaiwaneseCo and further misappropriated KoreanCo's confidential information. Employees A, B, and C were found guilty of illegally leaking, disclosing, and using KoreanCo’s trade secrets and industrial technology. TaiwaneseCo was indicted in a Korean court under the vicarious liability provisions described above in connection with the crimes committed by Employees A, B, and C, on the basis that TaiwaneseCo had failed to exercise its duty of due care and supervision over its employees. TaiwaneseCo argued that, since it is not a Korean corporation and that any negligence in exercising its duty of due care and supervision over its employees was committed outside of Korea, it should not be subject to Korean court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected TaiwaneseCo’s argument and held that TaiwaneseCo was indeed subject to the Korean court’s jurisdiction because at least a material part of the employees’ illegal acts was committed in Korea. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that, because the collusion and misappropriation occurred in Korea, the crime was deemed to have been committed in Korea even if the trade secrets were subsequently disclosed and used outside the country. Further, given that the criminal acts committed by Employees A, B, and C constituted a material element of the crime attributed to the employer under the vicarious liability provisions, the Supreme Court held that the employer also committed the crime within the territory of the Republic of Korea and accordingly recognized the Korean court’s jurisdiction over TaiwaneseCo. 2. Significance of Judgment This Supreme Court decision is the first case in which the Supreme Court has established its rationale for determining whether Korean court’s jurisdiction applies to a foreign corporation under the vicarious liability provisions. The ruling indicates that foreign corporations recruiting skilled employees from Korean companies may be subject to criminal prosecution in Korea based on the acts of those employees in Korea, even if the foreign corporation itself took no action in Korea. Foreign corporations are well-advised to implement sufficient measures to ensure that Korean employees hired in Korea do not bring or use their former employer’s confidential information in the course of their work for the foreign corporation. 3. Next Step As this decision sets a clear court precedent for criminally charging foreign corporations based on vicarious liability under Korean law, it is likely that Korean investigative agencies will become more active in investigating foreign corporations for criminal activity committed by their employees or agents, and in enforcing vicarious liability. To minimize the risk of criminal liability in Korea for trade secret misappropriation, both Korean and foreign companies should implement effective management and supervisory procedures when recruiting experienced employees from Korean competitors, thereby fulfilling their duty of due care and supervision over the activities of such employees. It should be noted that many other Korean statutes contain vicarious criminal liability provisions similar to those under the Trade Secret Protection Act and Industrial Technology Act, and this decision is likely to influence the interpretation of other statutes with such provisions. Therefore, foreign corporations are advised to review all applicable vicarious criminal liability statutes under Korean law, including those related to trade secrets and industrial technology, as well as their systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the conditions for avoiding vicarious liability across all areas. Please click on the following link to view the full version of this newsletter (Link). Authors Jay (Young-June) YANG (View Profile) Duck Soon CHANG (View Profile)
09 March 2026

Government Announces Policy to Abolish Breach of Trust Crime and Continue Efforts to Amend the KCC

The government and the Democratic Party of Korea (the “DPK”) continue to promote amendments to the Korean Commercial Code (the “KCC”). Following the mandatory cancellation of treasury shares, they are now considering amendments to the criminal liability framework concerning duty of care and other fiduciary duties of directors and management, namely the abolishment of breach of trust under the Criminal Code. As discussed in a previous newsletter (Link), the first and second amendments to the KCC have been legislated and implemented to protect shareholders’ interests by strengthening directors’ fiduciary duties and to enhance minority shareholders’ rights. Following the first and second amendments to the KCC, a third amendment is under discussion to mandate the cancellation of treasury shares. Gi-Hyeong Oh, the Chairman of the DPK’s KOSPI 5000 Special Committee, proposed a comprehensive bill to amend the KCC to mandate such cancellation of treasury shares on November 25, 2025. The bill clearly stipulates the principle that a company’s treasury shares should not be deemed its assets and should instead be deemed unissued shares. Accordingly, treasury shares in general are to be cancelled within one year from their acquisition by the company (while an additional six-month grace period will be accommodated in the case of existing treasury shares). Only in exceptional cases, such as for employee compensation, treasury shares may be retained and disposed of with an approval from the general shareholders’ meeting. Provided that, for such disposals of treasury shares, procedures similar to those for new share issuance must be followed to ensure that all existing shareholders are given the opportunity to participate in any such disposals on a pro rata basis. In addition to the expansion of directors’ and management’s fiduciary responsibilities and the strengthening of minority shareholder rights pursuant to the prior KCC amendments, the government and the DPK have been reviewing potential improvements to the criminal liability framework concerning duty of care and other fiduciary duties of directors and management as well, specifically regarding special breach of trust under the KCC and breach of trust under the Criminal Code. Unlike other advanced legal systems that primarily provide redress through a civil lawsuit, Korea has broadly recognized criminal liability in addition to civil liability for breach of trust charges, despite concerns that criminal liability is excessive and hinders management autonomy and creativity. Following the review by a task force for the rationalization of criminal penalties for economic crimes, the government and the DPK held a government-party consultation meeting on September 30, 2025. Thereafter, they announced their “Initial Proposal to Rationalize Criminal Penalties for Economic Crimes” (the “Initial Proposal”), which primarily includes the abolition of criminal penalties for breach of trust as a key component. The Initial Proposal may be summarized as follows: Protect good-faith business operators by abolishing liability under the Criminal Code for breach of trust - Liability will be abolished under the Criminal Code for breach of trust, while substitute legislation will be promptly prepared to avoid any gap in coverage for the punishment of major crimes. Substitute legislation will be developed in consultation with experts, clarifying the elements of breach of trust and narrowing the scope of punishment for it. Abolish criminal liability, but increase monetary penalty - Penalties for economic crimes, most of which are currently imprisonment and criminal fines, will be replaced by punitive damages or administrative surcharges. Administrative action with corrective orders to precede criminal penalty - Where legislative objectives may be attained through administrative action, such as corrective orders or restoration orders, administrative action will be imposed first and criminal penalties will be imposed only if those administrative measures are not complied with. If, in accordance with the announced government policy, both (i) breach of trust violations under the Criminal Code, and (ii) special breach of trust violations under the KCC are abolished, the scope of criminal liability of individual directors and management may be significantly reduced. Still, civil liability remedies such as shareholder derivative lawsuits or direct shareholder lawsuits under Article 403 of the KCC would remain available to address damages incurred by a company or its shareholders due to breaches of fiduciary duties by directors or management (including by major shareholders or others directing business operations). Nonetheless, while civil liability will persist, the reduced criminal liability is expected to considerably lessen the burden of preemptive risk assessment and post-event liability defense for business operators in Korea. Absent criminal liability, concerns related to criminal investigative procedures, such as seizures, searches, witness and reference investigations, and detentions, would also be largely alleviated. Additionally, if criminal liability for breach of trust is actually abolished, pending criminal trials on breach of trust charges may be subject to dismissal pursuant to Article 326 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act while ongoing investigations may be closed without prosecution. Conversely, the limitations to criminal recourse as a means of accountability may lead to an upsurge in civil lawsuits, such as shareholder derivative actions, thereby heightening the need for supplementary commercial risk management solutions, such as directors and officers (“D&O”) liability insurance. Afterall, with the announced introduction of punitive damages, the scope of civil damages liability may be expanded. Furthermore, the substitute legislation that the government intends to prepare with expert consultation, aimed at clarifying the elements of a breach of trust violation and narrowing its scope of punishment, may turn out to be a mere revision of the breach of trust crime with more limited conditions, rather than a complete abolishment. All in all, it will be necessary to monitor further legislative developments. In addition, following the first and second amendments to the KCC, the third amendment proposing the mandatory cancellation of treasury shares held by companies is expected to bring about significant changes to corporate governance practices. Listed companies have much to consider as they manage investor relations and communications, treasury share acquisition and shareholder dividends, responses to minority shareholder proposals and proceedings with respect to general meetings of shareholders, as well as the operational and decision-making processes of their boards of directors and board committees. Please click on the following link to view the full version of this newsletter (Link).   Authors Ji Pyoung KIM (View Profile) Jae Hong JUNG (View Profile) David Seoho LEE (View Profile) Min Young HAHN (View Profile)
09 March 2026
Press Releases

Introduction of Directors’ Duty to Protect Shareholders’ Interests and Other Changes to Regulatory Framework on Corporate Governance

The National Assembly passed the first amendment to the Korean Commercial Code (the “KCC”), expanding the fiduciary duties of directors to include the protection of shareholders’ interests (the “First KCC Amendment”) on July 3, 2025. The First KCC Amendment was thereafter promulgated and came into effect on July 22, 2025, following deliberation by the State Council and receipt of presidential approval. Subsequently, the National Assembly passed the second proposed amendment to the KCC, which mandates cumulative voting and expands the separate election of audit committee members of large listed companies (the “Second KCC Amendment”), on August 25, 2025, and it was approved by the State Council on September 2, 2025 and promulgated on September 9, 2025. Since the new government came into power, the market has shown considerable interest in the new administration’s policies aimed at enhancing corporate governance and systems related to corporate law, as well as amendments to the KCC, including the introduction of directors’ duties to protect shareholders’ interests as a starting point to implement such policies. The Democratic Party of Korea (the “DPK”) engaged in extensive discussions regarding its plans to (i) expand the fiduciary duties of directors to include the protection of shareholders’ interests, (ii) obligate listed companies to hold general meetings of shareholders virtually, (iii) adopt a system of independent directors, (iv) expand the separate election of audit committee members, and (v) mandate cumulative voting. Shortly after the start of the new administration, the DPK submitted the First KCC Amendment to address points (i), (ii) and (iii) mentioned above. Following the submission of the agenda by the ruling party, the Second KCC Amendment, which mandates cumulative voting and expands the separate election of audit committee members of large listed companies, underwent considerable deliberation in the plenary session of the National Assembly, including a filibuster by the opposition party, before it was finally passed on August 25, 2025. It was approved by the State Council on September 2, 2025 and promulgated on September 9, 2025. Please click on the following link to view the main provisions of the Second KCC Amendment and their enforcement dates (Link). Authors Ji Pyoung KIM (View Profile) Jeremiah N. PHILLIPS (View Profile) Min Young HAHN (View Profile) https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=33097
17 December 2025
Antitrust and competition

Key Antitrust and Competition Policy Directions of New Administration

On June 4, 2025, President Lee Jae-Myung commenced his five-year term as the 21st President of the Republic of Korea. During his inaugural speech, President Lee emphasized his commitment to building a market economy ecosystem based on fairness and shared prosperity. He stated that “[f]air growth based on shared opportunities and outcomes will open doors to a better world,” and that Korea must “move toward a fair society of balanced development and fair growth strategies” to “create an industrial ecosystem where companies of all sizes collaborate organically, and transition into a fair society free of privileged status or preferential treatment.” In line with these goals, the new administration is set to implement significant political and economic policy reforms that will impact businesses operating in Korea. The President’s National Policy Planning Committee unveiled the new administration’s five-year roadmap on August 13, and the administration’s 123 national policy tasks were officially approved at a Cabinet meeting on September 16. These policies highlight “establishing a fair economy of cooperation and shared prosperity” as a core strategy to achieve the administration’s key objectives, for which specific tasks include (i) creating a fair market order, (ii) ensuring consumer sovereignty and eradicating unfair practices, and (iii) combating technology theft and creating a business environment of shared prosperity. Creation of Fair Market Order The new administration has outlined the following specific initiatives to build a fair market order. Create a fair platform ecosystem: The new administration plans to establish an online platform regulatory system to protect consumers and businesses and eradicate unfair practices by (i) enhancing transparency throughout the transaction process – covering contract formation, modifications and execution, (ii) reducing the burden of fees on vendors and strengthening their bargaining power through the right to form a collective, and (iii) preventing misappropriation of transaction proceeds by requiring compliance with settlement deadlines and separate management of payments. Strengthen protections for the economically underprivileged: Efforts will focus on boosting the bargaining power of small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and small business owners against stronger counterparts – such as franchisors and prime contractors – and facilitating the opening and closing of businesses through measures including (i) granting franchisees the right to collective bargaining and enabling distributors, suppliers and vendors to form collectives, and (ii) implementing a franchise disclosure system to provide timely information to prospective franchisees and grant franchisees termination rights to exit agreements without excessive penalties when business conditions deteriorate due to unforeseen changes in commercial environments. Strengthen monitoring of unfair internal transactions: The new administration plans to tighten monitoring of unfair internal transactions by (i) discouraging overlapping listings within the same business group under the holding company system, (ii) preventing circumvention of regulations on inter-affiliate transactions through treasury shares that allow the owner family to make undue profits, and (iii) adjusting administrative fines that are proportionate to the unfair gains to ensure strict enforcement. Promote a fair procurement market: To ensure fairness in public procurement, the administration plans to introduce ex officio investigations and administrative fines for refusal to cooperate or non-compliance with the investigations, thereby strengthening oversight of unfair acts by institutions involved in public procurement. Ensure Consumer Sovereignty and Eradicate Unfair Practices The following implementation tasks aim to protect consumer rights and interests, promptly prevent unfair and illegal acts, and expand effective remedies for damages in areas closely related to daily life. Strengthen consumers’ rights and interests across all age groups: The new administration plans to enhance consumer protection by: (i) requiring disclosure of wedding service prices (for young adults), (ii) mandating gyms to disclose whether they have guarantee insurance for middle-aged consumers, and (iii) improving the financial stability of funeral service providers to protect the elderly. Expand civil remedies and enforcement: To better deter unfair civil practices and improve damage relief, the administration plans to (i) broaden the scope of unfair practices for which the private sector can file claims directly in court – without having to go through the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) – extending beyond the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA”) to include unfair practices under the Fair Subcontracting Transactions Act, Fair Franchise Transactions Act, and Fair Distribution Transactions Act, (ii) establish a fund to compensate consumers and SMEs harmed by unfair trade practices and support their rights, (iii) eliminate the lawsuit permit system and introduce the right to seek preventive injunctions to encourage consumer class actions, and (iv) create a system where courts can order the opposing party and the KFTC to submit evidence related to damages. Strengthen the dispute mediation and execution system: The new administration plans to pursue the enactment of the Fair Trade Dispute Mediation Act, which would consolidate dispute mediation procedures that are currently dispersed across individual laws, introduce a simplified mediation process and an appraisal advisory system, and expand collective mediation. The new administration also plans to update the dispute mediation system to provide legal grounds to provide support for litigation for disputes that failed to reach a mediation. In addition, it introduced plans for a new legal basis for requiring local governments to take measures and reply when the Korea Consumer Agency notifies a confirmed violation that was detected during the provision of damage relief, and allow all consumers to receive damage relief en masse even if they did not apply for it. Eradicate Technology Theft and Create a Business Environment of Shared Prosperity The following implementation tasks were proposed with the objective of establishing a fair market order and creating an environment where SMEs can grow by promptly remedying damages and resolving disputes arising from unfair practices such as technology theft. Strengthen technology protection system: The new administration plans to enhance protection against technology theft by imposing stricter penalties, alleviating the burden of proof during the litigation process and ensuring full compensation for damages. Specifically, these measures will include (i) the introduction of a Korean discovery system and enabling the court to order submission of materials, and (ii) an update of the calculation method of actual damages, which forms the basis for calculating the punitive compensation amount. Institutionalize the damages relief system: The new administration plans to (i) create a damages relief fund jointly operated by the KFTC and the Ministry of SMEs and Startups, (ii) establish an integrated support system dedicated to mediating disputes among SMEs and providing damage relief to SMEs, and (iii) establish a preventive system. Create a win-win environment: To close regulatory gaps, the administration plans to expand the scope of the supply price linkage system to energy costs, stabilize subcontract price payments, introduce a win-win financial index, and enhance the bargaining power of SMEs by granting SME cooperatives the right to collective bargaining. Establish a fair trade environment on platforms: The new administration plans to foster a culture of shared prosperity on online platforms and support the revitalization of public delivery apps by institutionalizing practices that promote win-win cooperation, including conducting assessments of platform growth, carrying out fact-finding surveys and operating a win-win consultative body between platforms and business operators. Implications The new administration is expected to be more active in regulating abusive behavior issues (i.e., abusive conduct arising from parties with a systematically unequal bargaining power) and overseeing large business groups. It will also enhance protection of economically underprivileged groups and consumers by updating and enforcing relevant laws and regulations for protecting and providing damage relief. Accordingly, companies will need to adopt proactive risk management measures and take into consideration relevant developments, not only to help ensure compliance with evolving regulations but also to identify new business opportunities. Authors Youngjin JUNG (View Profile) Gene-Oh (Gene) KIM (View Profile) Kyung Min KOH (View Profile) Kee Hong CHUN (View Profile) https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=33137  
11 December 2025
Labour and employment

“Yellow Envelope Act” Passes National Assembly Plenary Session

On August 24, 2025, the National Assembly passed the amendment to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the “TULRAA”), commonly known as the “Yellow Envelope Act.” The amendment was promulgated on September 9, 2025 and will become effective on March 10, 2026, six months from the date of promulgation. The key aspects of the amendment are as follows. Expansion of Scope of “Employer” Under TULRAA The proposed amendment recognizes an entity as an “employer” under the TULRAA if it has substantial and specific control over working conditions, even if it is not the direct employer under an employment contract. Accordingly, if a contracting entity can substantially and specifically control or determine the working conditions of a subcontractor’s employees, it may be deemed an employer and be obligated to engage in collective bargaining with the subcontractor’s union. Expansion of Scope of “Union Membership” Under TULRAA Currently, the TULRAA stipulates that an organization is not considered a trade union if it allows non-employees to join. The proposed amendment deletes this provision, making it possible for individuals who are not “employees” as defined by the TULRAA to join a trade union. Expansion of Scope of “Industrial Dispute” Under TULRAA The previous versions of this bill proposed deleting the word “determination,” which would have expanded the scope of industrial disputes to include not only disputes of interest (matters concerning the determination of working conditions), but also disputes of right (matters concerning the implementation of determined conditions). However, the current amendment retains the word “determination” but expands the scope of industrial disputes to include matters related to the “status of workers,” “business management decisions that affect working conditions,” and “violations of a collective bargaining agreement by the employer.” Notably, by explicitly including “business management decisions that affect working conditions” as a subject of industrial disputes, the amendment makes it likely that union demands for collective bargaining or industrial action over management decisions – such as mergers, spin-offs, business transfers, factory relocations or restructuring that impact employees – will be regarded as legitimate actions. Limitation on Damages Claims Against Unions While the current TULRAA grants immunity from liability for damages resulting from legitimate collective bargaining and industrial actions, the amendment broadens this protection to cover damages arising from “other activities of the trade union” as well. It also clarifies that a union or worker is not liable for damages caused to an employer when acting in defense against the employer’s illegal acts. In addition, the amendment outlines specific factors that courts must consider when determining the extent of individual liability for illegal acts committed by the union and/or workers and provides a framework for such union and/or workers to request a reduction in damages. The TULRAA encompasses major amendments, such as the (i) expansion of the scope of an “employer,” (ii) expansion of the scope of “union membership,” (iii) expansion of the scope of industrial disputes, and (iv) limitation on damages claims, and it is likely to have a significant impact on existing labor-management relations. Accordingly, companies will need to prepare for changes in labor-management relations with the implementation of the TULRAA.   Please click on the following link to view the full version of this newsletter (Link). Authors Hyun Jae PARK (View Profile) Shin Hyeong PARK (View Profile) https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=33102
11 December 2025

Status of Responsibilities Map Pilot Program for Financial Investment Companies and Insurers

The financial regulators recently provided a preliminary consultation on the responsibilities map to 53 large financial investment companies and insurers (each with at least KRW 5 trillion in total assets or at least KRW 20 trillion in assets under management), following earlier consultations with 18 financial holding companies and banks, and announced the major deficiencies and recommendations identified during the consultation process. In addition, the regulators announced their commitment to facilitating the new responsibilities map regime through a series of initiatives, including holding briefing sessions and conducting further status reviews. Pursuant to the amended Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (the “Corporate Governance Act”), which became effective as of July 3, 2024, large financial investment companies and insurers were required to prepare and submit a responsibilities map to the financial authorities by July 2, 2025. In an effort to facilitate the smooth operation of the responsibilities map regime, the Financial Supervisory Service (the “FSS”) announced a plan to conduct a responsibilities map pilot program intended for large financial investment companies and insurers. The FSS accepted applications to participate in this pilot program until April 11, 2025 and conducted a preliminary consultation for the participating companies, by reviewing their responsibilities maps and providing guidance and advice. On May 26, 2025, the FSS announced the key findings from the preliminary consultation through a press release titled “Status and Future Plans for the Responsibilities Map Pilot Program.” The key deficiencies and recommendations identified by the FSS from the pilot program are as follows: Different Standards for Allocating Responsibilities Under the System of Independent Representative Directors In the case of financial companies that have adopted a multiple independent representative director system (which typically operates as a two-person system consisting of a management representative director and a sales representative director), the financial regulators indicated that it would be advisable to allocate responsibilities among the representative directors based on their jobs’ nature and subject matters, by comprehensively taking into account the duties and authorities of each representative director, the purpose of the responsibilities map system and other relevant factors. For instance, the responsibilities requiring company-wide review, management and operation (such as the preparation of a responsibilities map and the execution and operation of policies, including those pertaining to internal control) should be allocated solely to the management representative director considering their nature, while any responsibilities falling directly within each representative director’s scope of duties should be allocated to such representative director. Potential Conflicts of Interest Arising From Holding Concurrent Offices of Representative Director and Chairperson of Board of Directors The financial regulators’ position is that while the Corporate Governance Act does not prohibit a representative director from concurrently serving as a chairperson of the board of directors, the principle of checks and balances following the introduction of the responsibilities map may not be efficiently implemented under such dual hatting arrangement. Under the Corporate Governance Act, (i) the board of directors is required to supervise the representative director’s performance of his or her overall management obligations, including internal control, and (ii) the internal control committee, which is a committee within the board of directors, is required to review and assess whether the representative director and the officers have appropriately taken overall management and reporting measures, including internal control measures, and request improvements if necessary. In light of concerns that concurrently holding the positions of representative director and chairperson of the board of directors may create a conflict of interest, the financial regulators recommended that financial companies establish effective internal control mechanisms (e.g., having all of the internal control committee members consist of outside directors) to ensure that the principle of checks and balances under the responsibilities map regime can be effectively implemented. Overlapping Responsibilities Due to Multi-Layered Allocation of Responsibilities The financial regulators pointed out that in cases where a higher-ranking officer and a subordinate officer both perform identical duties but substantive internal control responsibilities for the relevant duties are allocated to a subordinate officer instead of a higher-ranking officer who receives reports and exercises the decision-making authority, the internal control system may not function effectively as intended. Accordingly, where a higher-ranking officer and a subordinate officer perform the same duties, it is considered more appropriate to assign internal control responsibilities to the higher-ranking officer. This approach aligns with the principle of the responsibilities map system, which states that the management’s responsibilities for internal control should not be delegated to subordinate officers. Failure to Allocate Responsibilities to Key Officers The financial regulators’ position is that it is necessary to allocate responsibilities to the officers who perform and supervise duties related to such responsibilities, in order to ensure the effective operation of internal control in financial companies, regardless of whether or not they are standing officers and have the authority to approve internal control-related matters. Accordingly, financial companies should ensure that they do not, among others, (i) readily exclude non-standing directors from those to whom responsibilities are allocated, (ii) refrain from allocating responsibilities to certain officers based solely on the reason that they do not have the approval authority over internal control matters, and (iii) allocate less responsibilities to certain officers compared to the scope of responsibilities allocated to such officers described in the business report. The following cases were presented by the regulators as the cases involving inadequate allocation of responsibilities: (i) the responsibilities were not allocated to the CEO (executive director) who is in a position to exercise substantive influence over material decisions, such as the establishment of management strategies and business plans, on the ground that he or she “only has the duty to monitor as a director under the Korean Commercial Code and does not have the internal control-related approval authority,” and (ii) the chairperson of the board of directors (executive director) was assigned only the responsibilities related to the chairperson role, although his or her duties were described as “overall management” in the 2024 business report. While large financial investment companies and insurers were required to submit their responsibilities map to the FSS by July 2, 2025, the responsibilities map submission deadline for small and medium-sized financial investment companies is July 2, 2026. Upon submission of the responsibilities map, the representative director and officers of relevant companies will assume overall management obligations, including those related to internal control. In particular, starting from July 3, 2025, after the conclusion of the pilot program period, large financial investment companies and insurers are subject to sanctions (i) if they fail to meet requirements under the responsibilities map regime (such as avoiding overlap, omission or concentration of responsibilities), or (ii) if there is a breach of overall management obligations, including internal control, by the representative director and officers. Therefore, subject companies should ensure the effective operation of internal control systems based on their responsibilities maps, taking into account the financial regulators’ views on the necessary improvements to the mechanisms for reviewing the adequacy of the responsibilities map and internal control systems and compliance with applicable legal requirements. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=32306
04 September 2025

Amendment to E-Commerce Act Strengthening Regulations on Dark Patterns Took Effect

On February 14, 2025, an amendment to the Act on the Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce (the “E-Commerce Act”), which strengthens regulations on dark patterns, went into effect, along with related amendments to the Enforcement Decree and Enforcement Rules of the E-Commerce Act (the “Enforcement Regulations”). In particular, the amended Enforcement Regulations (i) specify obligations and prohibitions regarding dark patterns as stipulated under the E-Commerce Act, and (ii) include specified criteria for imposing business suspensions and administrative fines for non-compliance with these obligations. The amendments to the Enforcement Regulations aim to reinforce consumer protection in the online platform and e-commerce sectors by clarifying the regulations on dark patterns. The key details of the amended Enforcement Regulations are as follows: Specification of Obligations Regarding Dark Patterns Under E-Commerce Act The amended E-Commerce Act sets forth obligations and prohibitions concerning six types of dark patterns: (i) hidden renewals, (ii) gradual disclosure of costs, (iii) pre-selection of purchase options, (iv) false hierarchies, (v) obstruction of cancellation or withdrawal, and (vi) repeated interference. The amended Enforcement Regulations specify the consent period for consumers related to hidden renewals and provide exceptions for gradual disclosure of costs and repeated interference. Hidden Renewals: Obligations/Prohibitions Under Amended E-Commerce Act: E-commerce providers are required to obtain prior consent from consumers when increasing a subscription fee or converting a free service to a paid service (Article 13 (6) of the amended E-Commerce Act). Relevant Details in Amended Enforcement Regulations: Specification of consent period: Consumer consent must be obtained at least 30 days prior to any increase in a subscription fee or conversion of a free service to a paid service (Article 20-2 of the amended Enforcement Decree). Gradual Disclosure of Costs: Obligations/Prohibitions Under Amended E-Commerce Act: E-commerce providers are prohibited from displaying or advertising only a portion of the total price of goods without justifiable grounds (Article 21-2 (1) 1 of the amended E-Commerce Act). Relevant Details in Amended Enforcement Regulations: Exception: In cases where the total amount to be paid is difficult to list/advertise, the reasons must be disclosed on the first screen that displays the price information. The disclosure should specify the fees and items excluded from the initially advertised price, along with the reasons for their exclusion (i.e., why it is difficult to list the total amount at the outset). However, on pages with limited space, providing the justifiable grounds via a direct link to a pop-up page is allowed (Article 11-4 of the amended Enforcement Rules). Repeated Interference: Obligations/Prohibitions Under Amended E-Commerce Act: E-commerce providers are prohibited from repeatedly requesting that consumers change their choices (e.g., through pop-up windows) (Article 21-2 (1) 5 of the amended E-Commerce Act). Relevant Details in Amended Enforcement Regulations: Exception: If consumers are given the option to opt out of receiving requests to change decisions that they have already made for at least seven days, these requests will be excluded from the scope of repeated interference (Article 27-2 of the amended Enforcement Decree). Criteria for Imposing Business Suspension and Administrative Fines The amended Enforcement Decree provides for the imposition of business suspensions and administrative fines for violations related to the aforementioned six types of dark patterns. It also specifies the base duration of business suspensions and the base amounts of administrative fines imposed based on the number of violations, as outlined below. First Violation: Business Suspension: 3 months Administrative Fine: KRW 1 million Second Violation: Business Suspension: 6 months Administrative Fine: KRW 2 million Third Violation: Business Suspension: 12 months Administrative Fine: KRW 5 million Implications Hidden Renewals: To ensure that consumer consent is obtained at least 30 days before a scheduled increase in subscription fees or the conversion of a free service to a paid service, e-commerce providers must allocate sufficient time to complete the process. Gradual Disclosure of Costs: Regarding the wording and method of disclosing justifiable grounds for the gradual disclosure of costs, e-commerce providers may refer to the samples in the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s (the “KFTC”) press release dated February 10, 2025, which are related to the costs for installing air conditioners (Link). Repeated Interference: Cases where consumers have opted to not receive any requests to change their decisions for at least seven days will be excluded from repeated interference. Therefore, e-commerce providers should consider establishing a process that offers consumers options through a pop-up window, including a message such as “do not show again for [seven] days,” ensuring that the period lasts at least seven days. The KFTC has already imposed sanctions for violating the E-Commerce Act on the following entities: (i) five over-the-top (“OTT”) service providers for requiring consumers to go through cumbersome procedures to cancel contracts, (ii) an online retailer for labeling and advertising products at a discounted price even though it was unable to supply them, and (iii) an accommodation booking platform operator for failing to disclose that it displayed certain accommodations at the top of its search results page in return for advertising fees. The KFTC included its commitment to monitor and prevent dark patterns in its Annual Enforcement Plan for 2025. In addition, on February 13, 2025, it published a Q&A document regarding regulations on dark patterns to provide guidance to market participants on the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Regulations. Such proactive efforts to regulate dark patterns as a means of protecting consumers will likely continue under the new administration. Accordingly, companies should carefully follow regulatory developments regarding dark patterns and take adequate precautionary measures. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=32297
04 September 2025

Expected Changes to Corporate Governance Policies and Regulations Following Presidential Election

On June 4, 2025, Lee Jae-myung was inaugurated as the 21st President of the Republic of Korea. The new administration announced several pledges and policy statements during its presidential campaign, and on July 3, 2025, the National Assembly passed the proposed amendments to the Korean Commercial Code (the “KCC”), which provide for (i) a broadened scope of directors’ duty of loyalty, (ii) a strengthened 3% voting cap for the largest shareholders when appointing outside directors to the audit committee, (iii) the introduction of a mandatory independent director system for listed companies, and (iv) the codification of electronic general meetings of shareholders. As a result, significant changes to corporate governance regulations are anticipated. Companies are advised to proactively prepare strategic responses to the upcoming regulatory shifts. In the following paragraphs, we will analyze the expected direction of corporate governance regulations and discuss a proposed action plan for listed companies, based on our review of the proposed amendments to the KCC (the “Proposed Amendments”), as well as key pledges and proposed policies regarding corporate governance and the capital market. Amendments to KCC to Codify Directors’ Duty of Loyalty to Shareholders The Proposed Amendments address directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders, the protection of the interests of all shareholders and the obligation to treat all shareholders equitably. The amended provision concerning directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders will take effect immediately upon the promulgation of the Proposed Amendments. Even if the Proposed Amendments expanding directors’ duty of loyalty are enacted, there will be no material changes in situations where the interests of the company align with those of its shareholders. However, when a potential conflict arises between the interests of the company (or its controlling shareholders) and those of minority shareholders, breach of duty allegations involving directors are expected to become more prevalent. Under the current KCC, directors owe their duty of loyalty to the company. As long as directors can demonstrate that their actions served the best interests of the company, their business decisions, which may have not benefited certain shareholders, are likely to be protected. In contrast, the Proposed Amendments would expose directors to potential liability for breaching their duty of loyalty in transactions that, while beneficial to the company, could disadvantage certain shareholders (e.g., a third-party allotment of new shares). Furthermore, in transactions where potential conflicts of interest may arise between controlling and minority shareholders – such as mergers and comprehensive stock exchanges – directors could be at risk of breaching their duty to protect the interests of minority shareholders. In light of these proposed changes, directors will need to thoroughly review not only whether their decisions – including those involving corporate restructuring or mergers and acquisitions – are in the best interests of the company, but also how these decisions may affect different groups of shareholders. Strengthened 3% Voting Cap for Appointment/Dismissal of Audit Committee Members, Expansion of Mandatory Cumulative Voting and Separate Election of Audit Committee Members Under the current KCC, when appointing or dismissing an audit committee member who is not an outside director in a large listed company, the 3% voting cap for the largest shareholder is calculated by aggregating the shares held by the largest shareholder and its related parties. In contrast, under the Proposed Amendments, the aforementioned 3% voting cap will also apply to the largest shareholder when appointing or dismissing an audit committee member who is an outside director as well, starting one year after the promulgation of the Proposed Amendments. Currently, large listed companies must have at least two-thirds of their audit committee members appointed among their outside directors and, in practice, audit committees are often composed entirely of outside directors. With the Proposed Amendments expanding the 3% voting cap to be applicable to the appointment of audit committee members who are outside directors as well, companies will need to verify the scope and ratio of the voting cap before the Proposed Amendments take effect. Furthermore, the new administration is expected to support amendments to the KCC that would require large listed companies with total assets of KRW 2 trillion or more to: (i) adopt mandatory cumulative voting when appointing two or more directors, and (ii) gradually expand the number of directors who would be part of the audit committee, who therefore would have to be elected separately from other directors. If the aforementioned proposed amendments to (i) adopt mandatory cumulative voting when appointing two or more directors are enacted, large listed companies will no longer be able to opt out of the cumulative voting system through their articles of incorporation. Even if a large listed company already has provisions in its articles of incorporation opting out of cumulative voting, depending on the specific wording and the scope of the amendments to the KCC, such provisions may be rendered invalid in the event of legal disputes. As this may allow minority shareholders to immediately request the election of directors through cumulative voting, it would be essential for companies to proactively prepare for the possible change. Furthermore, the combination of the Proposed Amendments with the strengthened 3% voting cap and the subsequent amendments to the KCC described in points (i) and (ii) mentioned above may require the adoption of a cumulative voting system for separate election of directors who will become audit committee members, further increasing the likelihood of minority shareholder nominees being appointed as audit committee members. Introduction of Independent Director System and Codification of Electronic General Meetings of Shareholders for Listed Companies The Proposed Amendments change the title of outside directors to “independent directors” and increase the mandatory appointment ratio of “independent directors” for companies with total assets under KRW 2 trillion from one-fourth to one-third. According to the addenda to the Proposed Amendments, listed companies must comply with the mandatory appointment ratio within one year after the Proposed Amendments take effect. The term “Independent director” is defined as a “director who performs functions independently from inside directors, executive officers, and those with executive authority.” Notably, the term “independent director” places increased emphasis on directors’ independence from controlling shareholders. That said, there do not seem to be any significant differences in the duties and eligibility of “independent directors” in the Proposed Amendments and “outside directors” in the current KCC. Furthermore, the Proposed Amendments set forth legal grounds for electronic general meetings of shareholders and mandate the holding of such electronic shareholder meetings for listed companies designated by presidential decree, taking into account factors such as asset size (effective from January 1, 2027). Systematization of Mandatory Allocation of New Shares to Existing Ordinary Shareholders of Parent Companies Upon Subsidiary Listings After Spin-Offs There has been criticism in the market that when a listed company spins off a core business unit to establish a wholly owned subsidiary and subsequently lists that subsidiary, the share price of the parent company often declines, adversely affecting its minority shareholders. In response, regulators have pursued various reforms, including amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the “FSCMA”), to grant appraisal rights to shareholders who oppose such spin-offs. Building on these developments, the new administration has announced plans for an additional regulatory framework that would require listed companies, when listing a subsidiary established through a spin-off, to mandatorily allocate a portion of the subsidiary’s new shares to the parent company’s existing ordinary shareholders who are not the largest shareholders and their related parties. If the above mentioned framework is adopted, the mandatory allocation of new shares to parent company shareholders upon the listing of a spun-off subsidiary will become a legal requirement. This may affect the shareholder composition of the subsidiary and could have implications for the overall listing process. Accordingly, it would be advisable for companies considering a spin-off and subsequent listing transactions to carefully examine the potential impact of these regulatory changes in advance. Adoption of Fair Value Standards for Determining M&A Prices for Listed Companies and Strengthened Board Accountability in Corporate Restructuring Transactions The new administration is expected to introduce regulatory measures requiring listed companies to determine the price of mergers and acquisitions by applying fair value standards that take into account share prices, asset values and earnings values. Additionally, there will likely be enhanced board responsibility to ensure that the legitimate interests of minority shareholders are protected during mergers and other corporate restructuring transactions. In line with these anticipated regulatory developments, a bill to amend the FSCMA (proposed by National Assembly member Lee Jung-mun and 11 others on February 12, 2025) has been submitted to the 22nd National Assembly. The proposed amendment stipulates the following: (i) in restructuring transactions such as mergers, spin-offs or business transfers, listed companies must determine transaction prices based on a fair value that comprehensively considers share price, asset value and earnings value, to the extent that does not undermine investor interests, (ii) in the event of a dispute regarding the fairness of transaction prices, the burden of proof to demonstrate that the price was fair rests with the company, and (iii) if the transaction price is found to have been unfairly determined, the company and its directors will bear joint and several liability for any resulting damages. If the regulations described above are implemented through amendments to the FSCMA, it will become more crucial for listed companies to ensure fairness in determining the terms of restructuring transactions (e.g., mergers) by, for example, setting transaction prices based on assessments carried out by independent third-party advisors. Furthermore, as disputes regarding directors’ liability for damages are likely to increase, it will be essential for companies to pay heightened attention to maintaining both substantive and procedural fairness throughout the process of any restructuring transactions. Introduction of Mandatory Tender Offer Requirement in Corporate Acquisitions The mandatory tender offer regime aims to protect minority shareholders by ensuring that, when a major shareholder sells a significant stake, the accompanying control premium is not exclusively enjoyed by the majority shareholder to the detriment of minority shareholders. Under this system, when a shareholder acquires shares exceeding a certain threshold, he/she is required to make a public offer to purchase all remaining shares in the company. This grants minority shareholders the opportunity to exit their investments on equitable terms. The new administration is expected to once again pursue amendments to the FSCMA to introduce a mandatory tender offer system. Should such requirement take effect, the complexity of transferring management control is likely to increase for sellers. At the same time, buyers would face increased financial and procedural burdens, such as having to secure acquisition funds and engage in further transactions with minority shareholders. These factors are expected to have a profound impact on transactions involving the acquisition of corporate control. Review of Mandatory Cancellation of Treasury Shares by Listed Companies Many have frequently criticized listed companies that often retain treasury shares acquired through buybacks rather than promptly canceling them. Such shares may subsequently be resold on the market or be disposed of to specific third parties for business purposes, ultimately limiting the effectiveness of share buybacks as a means of returning value to shareholders. To address this issue, the new administration is actively reviewing the introduction of a regime that would generally mandate the cancellation of treasury shares held by listed companies. When these reforms are implemented, it is likely to become increasingly difficult for listed companies to dispose of treasury shares to business partners for alliances or to raise funds through the issuance of exchangeable bonds backed by treasury shares. Accordingly, it would be advisable for companies with significant treasury shareholdings to take into consideration relevant legislative developments, including whether the new cancellation obligations would apply retroactively to shares already held. In addition, based on relevant policy announcements and the campaign pledges of the new administration, the amendments to the KCC and/or the FSCMA are likely to be pursued to: (i) introduce a non-binding shareholder proposal system, and (ii) introduce a “merger examiner” system, permitting minority shareholders to petition the court to appoint an examiner for mergers between listed companies and their affiliates. In light of the promulgation and enforcement of the Proposed Amendments, the new administration’s policy direction and the anticipated amendments to relevant legislations, significant changes to corporate governance and capital market regulations are expected in the coming years. Accordingly, companies, including listed entities, are advised to closely examine developments in key applicable laws, such as the KCC and the FSCMA, and to keep abreast of the new administration’s regulatory direction. In addition, companies should proactively identify and assess potential issues that may arise in connection with future corporate governance restructuring or related transactions and prepare robust, systematic response strategies to ensure compliance. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=32299
04 September 2025
Labour and employment

MOEL Issues Revised Labor-Management Guidance on Ordinary Wage in Response to Supreme Court’s En Banc Decisions

On February 6, 2025, the Ministry of Employment and Labor (the “MOEL”) released an updated labor-management guidance on ordinary wage (the “Guidance”) in response to the recent Supreme Court en banc decisions overruling its previous position on ordinary wage. The Guidance aims to clarify the newly established legal principle on ordinary wage and mitigate potential disputes and confusion surrounding its application. On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued two en banc decisions and overruled its previous decision on ordinary wage (i.e., the December 18, 2013 en banc decision, the “2013 Supreme Court Decision”) by eliminating the “fixed” element of the requirement of ordinary wage. The 2013 Supreme Court Decision held that wage items that are paid to employees only if the employee is employed at a particular time are not “ordinary wage” because they are neither compensation for “prescribed labor” nor meet the “fixed” requirement for ordinary wage. Although this has been considered a well-established court precedent on this issue, the Supreme Court recently overruled this position and presented a new basis for determining which wage items should be included in ordinary wage. The new en banc decisions abolished the “fixed” element and reestablished the definition of ordinary wage as “…compensation for prescribed labor that is paid on regular and uniform basis…” In other words, the Supreme Court held that employees who provide prescribed labor in its entirety will not be denied the inclusion of relevant wage items in ordinary wage merely because there are certain conditions attached to the payment of such wage items (e.g., the condition that the employee must be employed on the day of payment or that the employee must work a minimum number of days during the prescribed working days to receive the wage item). The Guidance summarizes the MOEL’s response to some of the most frequently raised questions surrounding the Supreme Court’s en banc decisions in a Q&A format. We highlight some of the key clarifications below. (1) Should a wage that is conditioned on current employment (i.e., employed on the day of payment) be considered ordinary wage? If the wage is pre-determined in consideration of the prescribed work and is paid on a “regular” and “uniform” basis, it will fall under the scope of ordinary wage even if it is conditioned on current employment. Case example: Regular bonuses paid quarterly to current employees constitute ordinary wage. (2) For a new employee who has not yet become eligible to receive a regular bonus due to his/her short tenure, would the regular bonus still fall under ordinary wage? If the regular bonus meets the requisite criteria and is thus treated as ordinary wage, it should be included in the calculation of ordinary wage even if the employee has not yet become eligible to receive it. Case example: Even if an employee joins the company after the bonus payment date and is thus not yet eligible to receive the bonus, the annual regular bonus should nonetheless be included in the ordinary wage for the calculation of overtime work allowance. (3) How should a regular bonus be factored into the calculation of ordinary wage? Pursuant to Article 6, Paragraph 2, Items 5 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, ordinary hourly wage shall be calculated by dividing the “annual aggregate regular bonus” by the “annual total hours for the calculation of ordinary wage.”(4) Should wages conditioned on “current employment” or the “number of completed working days” be paid in proportion to the completed service period? In line with the Supreme Court decision, the validity of the conditions attached to the “payment” of a regular bonus should be reviewed separately from the question of whether it should be included in ordinary wage. Therefore, unless there is a reason to determine otherwise, such “payment” conditions are valid and employers are not obliged to pay such regular bonus if its conditions are not satisfied.To facilitate the seamless application of the new legal principle and the updated guidelines under the Guidance, the MOEL announced that it will (i) conduct labor-management explanatory sessions and meetings, (ii) provide guidance on updating collective bargaining agreements, rules of employment and employment agreements, and (iii) assist businesses in restructuring their compensation structures. Employers that have the payment of certain wage items conditioned on the employee being employed on the day of payment or on the employee having to work a minimum number of days will have to review and revise their salary system and/or prepare for potential disputes. Unions will also take a keen interest on the development of these issues. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=31856    
12 June 2025

Prospects for Key Trade Policy Direction of Trump 2.0

With Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election held on November 5, 2024, the second Trump administration will begin on January 20, 2025. The Republican Party also won the Senate and House Majority, achieving the so-called “Trifecta.” As a result, Trump 2.0 is expected to be able to push forward strong policies for the following two years until the next midterm elections. As Trump 2.0 is expected to implement tariff and trade policies with stronger momentum compared to the first term, it is crucial to prepare for these anticipated changes in light of President-elect Trump’s campaign promises and statements. 1. Tariffs President-elect Trump has repeatedly emphasized the need to introduce a universal tariff since the early days of his presidential campaign. The Republican Party Platform1 also expressed support for raising the standard tariffs. In addition, the Trump administration is trying to make up for the budget deficit from domestic tax cuts (including corporate taxes) through tariffs. He also claims that solving the trade deficit through tariff increases will also solve the problem of inflation. If the Trump administration introduces a universal tariff, the legal basis for doing so will most likely be the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the “IEEPA”). The IEEPA was already invoked during Trump’s first term to impose tariffs on Mexican products to address undocumented immigrant issues with Mexico. According to the IEEPA, the president can take a wide range of measures on economic transactions in case of a threat to US national security. Moreover, these measures may be taken more quickly because they do not require the United States Department of Commerce to conduct an investigation or issue a report, as required under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which were invoked during Trump’s first term. In addition, it is possible that the Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act will be invoked to impose tariffs on more products. Also, Trump 2.0 may negotiate to reduce quotas for items that are currently subject to quotas. Moreover, there were several cases in which high anti-dumping duties (“AD”) and countervailing duties (“CVD”) were imposed on the grounds of adverse facts available (“AFA”) or particular market situations (“PMS”) due to the alleged non-cooperation of the parties subject to the investigations during the first Trump administration. During that time, AD/CVD rates were revised by the judgment of the US Court of International Trade in many cases. Given such experiences, Trump 2.0 is expected to refine the basis for applying AFA and PMS to AD/CVD investigations. 2. Supply Chain In addition to the universal tariffs, Trump 2.0 is expected to take stronger measures against China and Mexico. During his election campaign, President-elect Trump said that he would revoke China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (“PNTR”) status and impose an additional 60% tariff on Chinese products on top of the above mentioned universal tariffs. Furthermore, the Trump administration may invoke Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose stronger import bans on Chinese products. Moreover, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (the “UFLPA”), which was enacted during the Biden administration, is also expected to be more actively enforced against China. Meanwhile, there is an ongoing tension with Mexico over immigration issues and circumvention of AD/CVD measures. In particular, President-elect Trump has threatened to impose additional tariffs if the Mexican Government fails to properly control undocumented immigrants. He also mentioned imposing tariffs of up to 2000% on cars produced by Chinese companies in production facilities in Mexico and exported to the US. In addition, in the review process of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (the “USMCA”) scheduled for 2026, there is a possibility that more restrictions on the proportion of Chinese raw materials/parts in Mexican products will be imposed and that the rules of origin will be strengthened. In addition, Trump 2.0 may attempt to control the import of Mexican products by referring labor-related issues at Mexican factories to dispute settlement systems, including the Rapid Response Mechanism (the “RRM”) under the USMCA. 3. Environment Trump 2.0 is expected to promote energy production using fossil fuels and reduce incentives for environment-friendly businesses by easing environmental regulations. However, there is a bipartisan support to introduce a carbon tax, which could generate tax revenue and block the import of foreign products with heavy carbon emissions, as well as carbon tax regulations such as the Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2024 (the “PROVE IT Act of 2024”) and the Foreign Pollution Fee Act. In addition, President-elect Trump has consistently criticized the Inflation Reduction Act (the “IRA”), one of the key achievements of the Biden Administration, and has even said that he will immediately abolish it. However, a significant portion of the states where companies are benefiting from the IRA are Republican states, and 15 of the 18 Republican House of Representatives members, who signed the letter asking President-elect Trump not to abolish the IRA, were re-elected. As a result, Trump 2.0 may make adjustments through executive orders instead of the complete abolition of the IRA, which would face significant backlash. President-elect Trump has vowed to fully impose universal tariffs, additional tariffs on China and tariffs on Mexico within 100 days of taking office on January 20. As discussed above, Trump 2.0 is expected to implement its campaign promises more quickly and assertively compared to the first term, with the Republican Party controlling both the executive and legislative branches. Therefore, companies will need to manage their supply chain risks related to exports to the US, assuming that (i) new tariffs will be imposed, (ii) the trade remedy measures will be more actively used, (iii) the US will pursue decoupling from China, and (iv) warnings of measures against circumvention of AD/CVD through Mexico will be materialized. Companies are advised to pay attention to the selection of key personnel of Trump 2.0 and the actions of the presidential transition team, and prepare for the policy direction of Trump 2.0 as it takes shape over time. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=30969 1 2024 Republican Party Platform: Republican Party’s campaign promises for the 2024 Presidential Election.
27 January 2025

Legislative Insights: Recent Developments in Corporate Governance Regulations to Enhance Shareholder-Oriented Corporate Governance

Recently, in the context of corporations restructuring their business and governance structures, active legislative discussions regarding changes to related laws and regulations are taking place. These include (i) discussions in relation to the reintroduction of the mandatory tender offer rule, and (ii) amendments to the Korean Commercial Code (the “KCC”) to encompass shareholders within the scope of directors’ duty of loyalty, which are aimed at establishing shareholder-oriented corporate governance schemes and protecting ordinary investors. The mandatory tender offer rule is designed to protect minority shareholders during the acquisition of a controlling stake in a company by requiring an acquirer who obtains a controlling interest from the primary shareholder to extend an offer to buy shares from other shareholders at a price comparable to what was paid for the controlling stake. Initially established with the amended Securities Exchange Act of 1997, the mandatory tender offer rule was abolished in 1998. However, discussions about its reintroduction have been underway since late 2022, through amendment bills to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the “FSCMA”). On December 21, 2022, the Financial Services Commission (the “FSC”) issued a press release at the “Seminar on How to Protect Ordinary Investors During Changes in Management Control via Stock Acquisitions,” underscoring the need for the mandatory tender offer rule to be reintroduced. On May 30, 2023, a group of 11 members, led by Changhyun Yoon, proposed a partial amendment bill to the FSCMA that included provisions for reintroducing the mandatory tender offer rule in the 21st National Assembly. However, the bill was ultimately shelved, and no revisions to the FSCMA were made. Currently, in the 22nd National Assembly, legislative efforts to amend the FSCMA – including proposals for the reintroduction of the mandatory tender offer rule aimed at enhancing the protection of ordinary shareholders – are ongoing. Meanwhile, active discussions focused on explicitly incorporating the protection of shareholder interests within directors’ duty of loyalty under the KCC are also underway. In August 2024, the Financial Supervisory Service (the “FSS”) convened a meeting with representatives from academia and research institutions to explore ways to broaden the scope of directors’ duty of loyalty while alleviating associated liabilities. During the meeting, participants offered diverse perspectives on enhancing governance structures, bolstering the protection of shareholder interests and ensuring fairness in the corporate decision-making process. Based on these discussions, it is anticipated that the FSC will soon formulate and announce the Government’s stance on making an amendment to the KCC to explicitly include shareholders within the scope of directors’ duty of loyalty. The details on the aforementioned discussions are as follows: 1. FSC Prepares Amendment Bill to FSCMA to Reintroduce Mandatory Tender Offer Rule and Proposes Partial Amendment Bill to FSCMA for Its Implementation During the 2024 Comprehensive National Audit by the National Policy Committee on October 24, 2024, the FSC emphasized the need to introduce the mandatory tender offer rule, stipulating a threshold of “50%+1 share,” which aims to protect minority shareholders during the acquisition of shares to gain control over listed companies. Based on the disclosed information, it appears that the FSC began drafting an amendment bill to the FSCMA around October 28, 2024. Among the amendment bills currently proposed to the 22nd National Assembly, those concerning the reintroduction of the mandatory tender offer rule and their specific provisions are summarized below. Category Bill No. 2204873 (Proposal Led by Myounggu Kang) Bill No. 2200692 (Proposal Led by Hoonsik Kang) Applicability of Mandatory Tender Offer When a person/entity becomes the largest shareholder by acquiring 25% or more of the shares in a listed corporation, it is required to make a tender offer to purchase a certain number of additional shares from other shareholders. However, exceptions to this requirement may be allowed to prevent potential infringement on the rights of other shareholders. When a person/entity becomes the owner of 25% or more of a listed corporation (including cases where the combined ownership of the entity and its related parties reaches or exceeds 25% of the total shares), it is required to make a tender offer for all remaining shares, excluding the shares it already owns, based on the total issued shares of the listed corporation after the acquisition. However, exceptions to this requirement may be allowed in consideration of preventing potential infringement on the rights of other shareholders. Public Notice of Mandatory Tender Offer and Submission of Tender Offer Statement Any person/entity intending to initiate a mandatory tender offer within 15 days following stock acquisition must publicly disclose the issuer of the stocks it intends to acquire, the purpose of the acquisition, the specific types and quantities of stocks it plans to acquire, and all relevant terms and conditions of the contemplated mandatory tender offer. - Terms and Methods of Mandatory Tender Offer A person/entity that initiates a mandatory tender offer shall purchase shares at a price that meets or exceeds the threshold established by the Presidential Decree. The price of the mandatory tender offer shall be equal to or greater than the price specified by Presidential Decree, taking into consideration the prior acquisition price. Prohibition on Purchase of Shares Through Ways Other Than Mandatory Tender Offer Any person/entity that initiates a mandatory tender offer is prevented from purchasing shares other than through the tender offer from the date it acquires the controlling shareholder’s shares until the end of the tender offer period. - Restrictions on Revocation of Mandatory Tender Offer A mandatory tender offer is irrevocable. However, it may be withdrawn under exceptional circumstances, such as the presence of a counteroffer, or if the person/entity making the mandatory tender offer dies or is dissolved, or becomes bankrupt. - Restrictions on Voting Rights in Case of Violation of Tender Offer Obligation If a person/entity that has acquired shares from the aforementioned controlling shareholder fails to issue the required tender offer announcement or provides false statements regarding material facts, its voting rights may be restricted. - Investigation With Respect to Mandatory Tender Offer and Related Measures The FSC may require the submission of materials or have the Governor of the FSS conduct an investigation if necessary for investor protection and may order the correction of the mandatory tender offer statement or suspend or prohibit the mandatory tender offer on an as-required basis. - To our understanding, the FSC has been opposing the bill proposed by a group of assemblymen led by Hoonsik Kang, which mandates that any person acquiring 25% or more of a company’s stock shall also acquire all (100%) of the remaining shares, irrespective of whether they become the largest shareholder. The foregoing position has taken into consideration criticisms from the business community regarding potential adverse impacts on the M&A market. If the amendment bill to the FSCMA, which reinstates the mandatory tender offer rule, is passed and implemented by the National Assembly, it is anticipated to positively impact minority shareholders. Since mandatory tender offers include a control premium in the offer price, minority shareholders can gain the opportunity to exit the company on terms similar to those offered to the majority shareholder, thereby allowing them to recover their investment in the relevant company. However, it is important to recognize the following criticisms raised in the business and academic communities: The survey results on corporate acquisitions, indicating that the vast majority of M&A transactions in Korea involve stock purchases, have been used by advocates of the mandatory tender offer to support its introduction. However, these conclusions arise from skewed statistical interpretations, which either stem from narrowly misinterpreting disclosed information or excluding transactions involving controlling rights in determining the number of M&A transactions. While sharing of control premium embodies the principle of shareholder equality, it can also significantly restrict the freedom of stock transfer. In balancing these two aspects, shareholder equality does not necessarily always take precedence over the freedom to transfer shares. Control premiums reflect the potential value of gaining control over a company and are ultimately not the company’s assets. Therefore, the decision to share these benefits is a matter to be resolved among the shareholders, not an issue directly involving the company. While value-destroying mergers and acquisitions are undesirable, it would be more appropriate to implement other measures, such as enhancing the authority and responsibilities of the board of directors, to resolve such an issue. 2. Discussions on Expansion of Scope of Directors’ Duty of Loyalty Under KCC There seems to be a growing debate on whether directors’ duty of loyalty under the KCC should encompass the protection of shareholders’ interests. On August 21, 2024, the FSS held the “Academic Conference on the Enhancement of Corporate Governance” to explore ways to enhance corporate governance systems. The conference aimed to gather insights from the academic community regarding potential legislative amendments, specifically focusing on expanding the scope of directors’ duty of loyalty under the KCC and implementing measures to limit excessive liability. Here are some highlights of the thoughts raised by the academia at the conference: The prevailing opinion was that it would be essential to explicitly define what “duty of loyalty to shareholders” would entail, in light of the fact that even though the current KCC presumes the protection of shareholders’ interests, the courts interpret the relevant provision in a limited manner. While there was a consensus on the necessity of reducing the excessive liability of directors when introducing the duty of loyalty to shareholders, it was also agreed that the timing and scope of the abolition of the crime of breach of trust (which was proposed as an alternative) would require further in-depth discussion. Multiple viewpoints were expressed, including the need for measures to prevent controlling shareholders from acting in their own interests. Suggestions included introducing a dissenting shareholder appraisal right to safeguard shareholders’ interests and establishing clarification of procedures to ensure fairness in cases of conflicts of interest among shareholders. On August 28, 2024, the FSS held a meeting with research institutes to discuss enhancements to corporate governance. The meeting focused on gathering and deliberating upon the opinions of participating institutes regarding the proposed introduction of directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders. Key takeaways from the research institutes’ opinions were as follows: Since the corporate value enhancement policy aims to reshape the mindset and actions of market participants, it would be essential to implement this policy in a consistent manner from a long-term perspective. Considering the characteristics of the Korean corporate governance structure, it would be important to explore measures that ensure fair decision-making in companies with controlling shareholders, as well as means to protect minority shareholders. These could include strengthening disclosure standards and imposing restrictions on the reappointment of outside directors, among other initiatives. To improve the effectiveness of the general meeting of shareholders, it would be essential to provide detailed information about the relevant agenda items and to promote electronic voting. Additionally, facilitating corporate CEOs’ active participation in investor relations (“IR”) events will further enhance communication with shareholders. There were mixed opinions, including support for introducing directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders to safeguard their interests, alongside some opposition due to concerns about potential side effects. However, both sides acknowledged the importance of enhancing existing systems to address significant events, such as mergers. During the “Major Policy Progress and Future Plans for the Capital Market” meeting with foreign journalists held on November 11, 2024, the FSC announced its plan to present the Government’s stance on the proposed amendment to the KCC, which includes the proposed introduction of directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders. Meanwhile, the opposition party has recently adopted the proposed amendment to the KCC, which includes an expansion of directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders, as part of its official platform. The amendment has been submitted to the subcommittee of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. This indicates that discussions regarding the proposed amendment, including the directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders, are actively taking place in the National Assembly. The reintroduction of the mandatory tender offer rule and the expansion of directors’ duty of loyalty are likely to have a significant impact on the corporations’ business activities, particularly in the area of corporate restructuring transactions. Although the proposed amendment to the FSCMA, which involves the reintroduction of the mandatory tender offer rule, has been submitted to the relevant committee, there is a possibility that the details of the bill may be altered during the subcommittee and plenary sessions of the National Assembly. Therefore, it remains unclear how the proposed amendment will ultimately be implemented. Furthermore, regarding the KCC, there may be proposed amendments in the future that stem from discussions with academic and research institutions during meetings organized by the financial authorities. Alongside the introduction of directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders, there could also be additional discussions on advisory shareholder proposals aimed at improving shareholder returns and facilitating capital reallocation. The proposed amendments to the FSCMA and the KCC seem to have been initiated by the Government with the dual objectives of revitalizing the M&A market and protecting minority shareholders. Given the specifics of these proposed amendments, it is highly likely that they will result in significant alterations to M&A transactions – impacting schedules, timelines and corporate governance restructuring transactions. Therefore, it is crucial to remain informed on legislative developments, as well as the key details and progress of the discussions regarding the enhancement of related systems. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=30968
27 January 2025

Strengthening of Foreign Investment Security Review System

The amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act proposed by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (the “MOTIE”) on December 20, 2023, were promulgated and became effective on August 27, 2024 (the “Amendments” or “Amended Enforcement Decree”). The Amended Enforcement Decree revised and supplemented the provisions relating to the operation of the foreign investment security review system and its processes by establishing Article 5(2). As a result, the foreign investment security review system has been strengthened through the establishment of a legal basis to initiate an ex officio review even in the absence of a foreign investment notification, among other measures. The specifics of the Amendments are as follows. 1. Authorization for Ex Officio Review and Clarification of Grounds for Initiating Foreign Investment Security Review The Amended Enforcement Decree newly established the legal basis for an ex officio review, which allows the initiation of a foreign investment security review for transactions without filing a report on the foreign investment, by providing that it may be initiated at the request of the ministers of relevant ministries or when deemed necessary by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy. Accordingly, a foreign investment security review may be initiated not only when there is a foreign investment notification that triggers a review by the Foreign Investment Committee, but also if requested by the ministers of relevant ministries or the National Intelligence Service, or deemed necessary by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy. With respect to the review preclusion period, the Amended Enforcement Decree stipulates that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may not deliberate or decide whether an investment endangers national security, in the following cases: (i) a transaction is not subject to a national security review in response to a foreign investor’s application for pre-clearance pursuant to Article 5(2)-2 of the Amended Enforcement Decree, (ii) a transaction has been approved following a foreign investment security review pursuant to Article 5(2)-6 of the Amended Enforcement Decree, and (iii) three years have passed since the notification. However, this does not include cases where a new deliberation and decision are necessary due to significant changes in circumstances after the notification. 2. Clarification of Authority to Request Submission of Additional Materials and Information The Amended Enforcement Decree provides express grounds for the heads of the relevant administrative agency and the National Intelligence Service to request additional information and materials from the applicant during the foreign investment security review process. In the past, there had not been an explicit provision in the law authorizing the Government to require applicants to submit additional materials beyond the application and material originally submitted, although in practice, such supplemental requests were regularly made. Thus, the Amendments are intended to increase the transparency of the system. 3. Additional Grounds for Initiating Foreign Investment Security Review and Clarification of Relationship With Similar Review Procedures Under Other Laws Article 5(1)-2b, which stipulates the specific grounds for review by the Foreign Investment Committee, has been amended to add “the case where there is high probability of leakage of national high-tech strategic technologies under the National High-Tech Strategic Industries Act,” to clarify that a foreign investment security review may be initiated even when investing in companies that possess national high-tech strategic technologies. On the other hand, Article 5-2(10) of the Amended Enforcement Decree provides grounds to omit the security review process under the Foreign Investment Promotion Act, if the foreign investment (i) falls under Article 5(1)-2b Item 5 (i.e., high likelihood of leakage of national core technology) or Item 6 (i.e., high likelihood of leakage of national high-tech strategic technology), and (ii) has been approved following review under other laws. 4. Clarification of Grounds for Formation of Expert Committee and Authorization for Fact-Finding The new provision provides the legal basis for the establishment of an Expert Committee for foreign investment security review, strengthening the stability of the review process. 5. Improving Effectiveness of Pre-Confirmation Procedure In order to assist foreign investors in making prompt decisions and to promote foreign investment, the review deadline has been set at 30 days (not counting additional time required for supplementing any information) when a foreign investor requests a preliminary confirmation of whether a transaction falls within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Investment Committee. 6. Adjustment to Review Deadlines and Rationale In order to streamline the review process by reasonably adjusting the review deadlines for each stage of the foreign investment security review procedure, the Amended Enforcement Decree (i) requires the Expert Committee to complete its review within 90 days from the date of the request for preliminary review, with a one-time extension of 30 days if necessary, and (ii) establishes a new provision that requires the MOTIE to decide whether the foreign investment constitutes a national security risk within 45 days from the date that the Expert Committee reports its review results. However, the Amended Enforcement Decree only sets the review deadlines and does not specify how to resolve a situation where the deadlines are exceeded. Therefore, it remains to be seen how it will be applied in practice. 7. Elimination of Disclosure Obligation In the past, the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act required public disclosure of the contents of the decision approving or prohibiting the acquisition of shares by foreigners for national security reasons, the reasons for the decision and any conditions imposed. However, the Amended Enforcement Decree eliminates this disclosure obligation. The Amended Enforcement Decree has clarified the legal basis and procedures relating to the foreign investment security review process by establishing the legal grounds for ex officio review by relevant administrative agencies, confirming the Government’s right to request additional materials and information from the applicant and clarifying the review deadlines for each stage of the review process, among others. Companies contemplating foreign investments that may be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Investment Committee are advised to utilize mechanisms such as the pre-confirmation process to check whether the proposed investment would be subjected to a foreign investment security review. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=31076
27 January 2025
Press Releases

151 Professionals Selected as “National Leaders” – WWL: Korea 2024

In the 2024 edition of WWL: Korea, 151 attorneys, patent attorneys and certified public accountants across 22 fields from Kim & Chang were selected as “National Leaders” in their respective fields. This year, our firm obtained the most listings out of all Korean law firms once again, demonstrating the expertise and extensive capabilities of our professionals. The following is a complete list of our rankings this year: Arbitration: Una Cho, Matthew J. Christensen, Byung-Woo Im, Sae Youn Kim, Chul-Won Lee, Hyungkeun Lee, Sue Hyun Lim, Harold Noh, Joel E. Richardson, Byung-Chol (B.C.) Yoon Banking: Sang Jin Ahn, Young Kyun Cho, Joon Young Kim, Ie Hwan Yoo Business Crime Defence & Investigations: Jeong Ho Ahn, Myungsuk Sean Choi, Hwa Soo Chung, Byung-Suk Lee, Scott Lee, Seung Ho Lee, Kyson Keebong Paek Capital Markets: Bo Yong Ahn, Yong Ho Choi, Myoung Jae Chung, Young Man Huh, Chang Hyeon Ko, Seon-Jee Lee, Ie Hwan Yoo Commercial Litigation: Jeong Ho Ahn, Chang Hoon Baek, Jin Yeong Chung, Sang Ho Han, Sang-Wook Han, Yong Sang Kim, Hye Kwang Lee, Hyo Je Lee, Jung Keol Suh, Byung-Chol (B.C.) Yoon Commercial Mediation: Matthew J. Christensen, Sae Youn Kim, Sue Hyun Lim, Joel E. Richardson Competition: Jay Ahn, In Seon Choi, Kee Hong Chun, Brian Tae-Hyun Chung, Jin Yeong Chung, Maria Hajiyerou, Jung Hyun Han, Ye Sun Han, Jihye Hong, Jung Won Hyun, Kyung Taek Jung, Youngjin Jung, Gene-Oh (Gene) Kim, Kyoung Yeon (Kay) Kim, Hemi Lee, Hyungyu Lee, Kyung Yul Lee, Jeong-Suh Park, Sang Hyuk Park, Luke Shin, Sung-Joo Yoon Construction & Real Estate: Matthew J. Christensen, Byung-Woo Im, Daewoong Lee, Dong-Seok (Johan) Oh, Yon Kyun Oh Corporate Tax: Sung Gweon Cho, Im Jung Choi, Seung Hwan Jin, Byung-Moon Jung, Sang Woo Lee, Tae-Yeon Nam, Jeong-il (J.I.) Park, Seung Jong Yang Data: Dong Shik Choi, Haewon Han, In Hwan Lee, Min Chul Park, Ari Yoon Energy: Young Kyun Cho, Kwang Yeoun Hwang, Chang Sup Kwon, Daewoong Lee, Ken Nam, Min-Young Oh, John Sangho Park, Chang-Hee Shin Environment: Hyeong Jun Hwang, Kyoung Yeon (Kay) Kim, Yoon Jeong Lee Franchise: Anthony (Haejin) Jeong, Byung In (Jared) Lee, Hi Sun Yoon Intellectual Property: Duck Soon Chang, Sang-Wook Han, Eun Jin Jung, Angela Kim, In Hwan Kim, Won Kim, Ann Nam-Yeon Kwon, Jason J. Lee, Man Gi Paik, Chun Y. Yang, Jay (Young-June) Yang Labor & Employment: Paul Cho, Hong Young Ha, Chun Wook Hyun, Matthew F. Jones, Wan Joo, Ki Young Kim, Weon Jung Kim, Do Hyung Lee, Heon-Yup Lee, Jung Taek Park, Deok Il Seo M&A and Governance: Bo Yong Ahn, Heejun Choi, Myoung Jae Chung, Young Man Huh, Do Young Kim, Gene-Oh (Gene) Kim, Ji Pyoung Kim, Joon B. Kim, Shin Kwon Lim, Jong Hyun Park, Sang Taek Park Private Funds: Heesung Ahn, Myoung Jae Chung, Young Man Huh, Shin Kwon Lim Product Liability Defence: Sang Ho Han, Jay J. Kim, Sung Jin Kim, Chul-Won Lee, Chunsoo Lee, Inhak Lee, Yoon Sang Lee, Brian C. Oh Restructuring & Insolvency: Chang Hoon Baek, Jin Yeong Chung, Chiyong Rim Trade & Customs: Youngjin Jung, Juhong Kim, Seong Joong Kim, Jin Hwan Lee Transport – Aviation: Robert Gilbert Transport – Shipping: Byung-Suk Chung, Chul-Won Lee, Jae Bok Lee About WWL: Korea: WWL: Korea is one of the National Guides published by WWL, an internationally recognized legal media group. WWL: Korea selects National Leaders in Korea based on independent research and surveys/interviews with employees and clients, and publishes the resulting analysis report. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=1&idx=30028  
05 November 2024
Press Releases

“Outstanding” in All 24 Categories and 65 “Leading Lawyers” – asialaw 2024

Kim & Chang was named “Outstanding” in all 24 categories in the 2024 edition of asialaw,once again receiving the highest recognition across all surveyed categories. Moreover, 65 of our attorneys and patent attorneys were recognized as Korea’s “Leading Lawyers” in their respective areas of expertise. Below are the details of our wins this year. Firm Rankings (named “Outstanding” in all 24 categories in Korea) Practice Areas Banking and finance Capital markets Competition/antitrust Construction Corporate and M&A Dispute resolution Intellectual property Investment funds Labour and employment Private equity Regulatory Restructuring and insolvency Tax Industry Sectors Aviation and shipping Banking and financial services Consumer goods and services Energy Industrials and manufacturing Infrastructure Insurance Media and entertainment Pharmaceuticals and life sciences Real estate Technology and telecommunications Individual Rankings Aviation: Young Min Kim Banking and financial services: Young Kyun Cho, Kye Sung Chung, Myoung Jae Chung, Young Man Huh, Chang Hyeon Ko, Hoin Lee, Ie Hwan Yoo Banking and Finance: Young Kyun Cho, Kye Sung Chung, Ick Ryol Huh, Young Min Kim, Ie Hwan Yoo, Hi Sun Yoon Capital markets: Myoung Jae Chung, Young Man Huh, Yong-Ho Kim, Chang Hyeon Ko, Hoin Lee Competition/antitrust: Jay Ahn, Kee Hong Chun, Brian Tae-Hyun Chung, Maria Hajiyerou, Jung-Won Hyun, Kyung Taek Jung, Youngjin Jung, Eun Hee Kim, Gene-Oh (Gene) Kim, Kyoung Yeon (Kay) Kim, Tae Hyuk Ko, Hwan Beom Lee, Luke Shin Corporate/M&A: Kye Sung Chung, Young Man Huh, Kyung Taek Jung, Joon B. Kim, Wan Suk Kim, Kyung Yul Lee, Shin Kwon Lim, Jong Koo Park, Young Jay Ro Dispute resolution: Jin Yeong Chung, Byung-Woo Im, Don Jeon, Hye Sung Kim, Sae Youn Kim, Hyo Je Lee, Hee Won (Marina) Moon, Byung-Chol (B.C.) Yoon Energy: Young Kyun Cho, Chang Sup Kwon, Chang-hee Shin Labour and employment: Weon Jung Kim, Deok Il Seo Insurance: Jay Ahn, Jae Ho Baek, Chul-Won Lee Intellectual property: Duck Soon Chang, Hyun-Jin Chang, Sang-Wook Han, In Hwan Kim, Young Kim, Sang Hun (Andrew) Lee, Jay (Young-June) Yang Investment funds: Young Man Huh Media and entertainment: Dong Shik Choi, Min Chul Park Pharmaceuticals and life sciences: Myung Soon Chung, Eun Hee Kim, Hwan Beom Lee Private Equity: Wan Suk Kim, Shin Kwon Lim Real estate: Keun Ah Cho, Yon Kyun Oh Regulatory: Myungsuk Choi, Seung Ho Lee, Hee Won (Marina) Moon, Kook Hyun Yoo Restructuring/insolvency: Jin Yeong Chung, Jungho Hong, Janghoon Kim, Chiyong Rim Shipping: Byung-Suk Chung, Young Min Kim, Jin Hong Lee, Chul-Won Lee, Hi Sun Yoon Tax: Taeheung Ha Technology and telecommunications: Dong Shik Choi, Min Chul Park About asialaw: asialaw is a legal directory annually published by asialaw, a legal media company associated with Delinian, covering law firms and legal practitioners in the Asia-Pacific region. Drawing from law firm submissions, client and peer feedback, independent research and data analysis, asialaw published its rankings of Korean law firms in 13 practice areas and 11 industry sectors. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=1&idx=30314    
05 November 2024
Press Releases

Kim & Chang Ranked “Tier 1” in All Eight Practice Areas – IFLR1000 (2024)

Kim & Chang once again received “Tier 1” (top-tier) rankings in all areas surveyed for Korea in the 2024 edition of IFLR1000. Additionally, 54 of our attorneys were recognized as “Market Leaders,” “Women Leaders,” “Highly Regarded,” “Expert Consultants,” “Rising Star Partners,” “Rising Stars,” and “Notable Practitioners” in their respective practice areas. The following list details our wins this year. Firm Rankings (“Tier 1” in all eight practice areas) Banking and finance Capital Markets: Debt Capital Markets: Equity Capital Markets: Structured finance and securitization M&A Private Equity Project development Restructuring & Insolvency Individual Rankings Market Leader Young Kyun Cho, Myoung Jae Chung, Kyung Taek Jung Women Leader Yoon Kyung Chang, Chang-hee Shin, Jackie Yang Highly Regarded Bo Yong Ahn, Myoung-Soo Cho, Jin Yeong Chung, Kye Sung Chung, Ick Ryol Huh, Young Man Huh, Gene-Oh (Gene) Kim, Geon Ho Kim, Janghoon Kim, Jae Myung Kim, Yong-Ho Kim, Young Min Kim, Chang Hyeon Ko, Bong Suk Koo, Hoin Lee, Sang Goo Lee, Sookyung Lee, Dong-Seok (Johan) Oh, Jong Koo Park, Chiyong Rim, Chang-hee Shin, Youngjin Sohn, Yong Seung Sun, Ie Hwan Yoo, Seung Jae Yoo, Hi Sun Yoon Expert Consultant Yon Kyun Oh Rising Star Partner Heesung Ahn, Dae-Hyuk Choi, Jungho Hong, Teo Kim, Chang Sup Kwon, Min-Young Oh, John Sangho Park Rising Star Sungjin Kim, Eun-Young Lee, Hyun Wook Lew, Jackie Yang Notable Practitioner Hyungjune An, Yoon Kyung Chang, Hyeon Deog Cho, Robert L. Gilbert, Bo Hyun Kim, Do Young Kim, Hye Sung Kim, Jung-Chull Lee, Kyung Yoon Lee, Sun Yul Lee, Jina Myung, Jong Hyun Park, Kwon-Eui Park, Tae Min Yun About IFLR1000: IFLR1000, the guide to the world’s leading financial and corporate law firms, annually publishes rankings based on law firm submissions, client feedback and independent research. In the 2024 edition, IFLR1000 ranked Korean law firms and lawyers in eight practice areas. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=1&idx=30313  
05 November 2024

Key Contents of Proposed Amendment to English Arbitration Act and Implications in International Arbitration

A bill aimed at amending the English Arbitration Act 1996, the primary legislation governing arbitrations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (the “Bill”), was introduced into the House of Lords on July 18, 2024. The Bill was initially submitted to the House of Lords in November 2023, but was discarded due to the UK general election in July 2024. Following revisions, it has been reintroduced and will undergo review by the House of Lords Committee in September 2024 before it is presented to the House of Commons for further consideration and potential enactment into law. In a survey conducted in 2021 by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, London was chosen as the most preferred arbitration seat among practitioners worldwide. In practice, London is frequently designated as an arbitration seat for cases administered by institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC”). Therefore, understanding the key components and implications of the Bill is essential. The key provisions of the Bill to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 are as follows: Clarification of Law Applicable to Arbitration Agreements In arbitration, (i) the substantive governing law of a contract, and (ii) the governing law of an arbitration agreement contained within the contract are conceptually distinct. As the latter can determine the formation and validity of the arbitration agreement, it holds significant importance in arbitration proceedings, especially when the parties have not explicitly specified the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. Under the current English Supreme Court’s precedent, if parties do not expressly specify the governing law of the arbitration agreement but do identify the substantive law of the contract, the latter is deemed to govern the arbitration agreement. However, the Bill proposes a departure from this established practice of arbitration law. It provides that, if the parties do not expressly designate the governing law of the arbitration agreement, the law of the seat of arbitration, which is English law, will be the governing law of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the Bill clarifies that merely specifying the substantive governing law of the contract does not constitute an explicit designation of the governing law of the arbitration agreement. Streamlining Process for Challenging Arbitral Awards Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allows parties to contest an arbitration arguing a lack of jurisdiction or disputing the merits. Traditionally, English courts have conducted a full rehearing in cases of jurisdictional challenges, as seen in the Dallah case.1 The Bill introduces provisions that limit the court’s ability to rehear these challenges. Specifically, courts may be prohibited from accepting new evidence or arguments during jurisdictional disputes regarding arbitral awards. Furthermore, they may also be prohibited from reevaluating evidence that has already been reviewed by the arbitral tribunal. Nonetheless, the Bill includes exceptions to these restrictions. These exceptions may apply (i) if a party could not have presented the evidence during arbitration even with reasonable diligence, or (ii) if it is otherwise required in the interests of justice. The specific criteria and the extent of these exceptions will need to be further clarified in the future. Other Key Proposed Amendments Additionally, the Bill proposes several measures to improve the speed and efficiency of arbitration proceedings including: (i) a provision granting the arbitral tribunal the authority to make an award on a summary basis without a fact-finding procedure if it determines that the issue, claim or defense “has no real prospect of success;” and (ii) a provision stating that an emergency arbitrator, appointed to address urgent matters prior to the full tribunal being constituted, will have power similar to that of the regular arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, provisions have been added and supplemented to enhance the independence of arbitrators, including: (iii) a provision imposing a duty to disclose any circumstances that might give rise to doubts as to the impartiality of an arbitrator or arbitrator candidate; and (iv) a provision strengthening the immunity of arbitrators regarding their resignations to foster impartiality. For arbitrations conducted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Arbitration Act, parties may appeal on legal grounds in certain circumstances – a unique feature not typically found in the arbitration laws of other countries that follow the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”). Additionally, the Bill introduces provisions that diverge from the UNCITRAL Model Law, making it crucial to thoroughly examine the implications and significance of designating England, Wales and Northern Ireland as the seat of arbitration. Specifically, once the Bill passes through Parliament and is enacted, the formation and validity of arbitration agreements for arbitrations seated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will likely be governed by English law, unless the parties have explicitly chosen a different applicable law for the arbitration agreement. This approach seemingly conflicts also with the stance of the Supreme Court of Korea, which has traditionally aligned with precedents set by the English Supreme Court (e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da225084, July 26, 2018). Given that English law is known for its broader recognition of the formation and validity of arbitration agreements, it is anticipated that parties will need to review the governing law, dispute resolution and jurisdiction clauses more diligently when entering into contracts with international elements. Furthermore, according to the Bill, if the issue, claim or defense in an arbitration case lacks a substantial chance of success, the arbitral tribunal may issue a summary award, thereby expediting the arbitration process. Additionally, if parties seek to challenge arbitral awards in English courts (via a set-aside action), they may be restricted from submitting new evidence or claims beyond what was already submitted during the arbitration proceedings. Consequently, regardless of the contract’s governing law, it becomes essential for parties involved in arbitrations seated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to thoroughly review all relevant facts and documentation from the outset and to adopt a strategic approach to the arbitration proceedings. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=30336 Footnotes 1 Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co v. Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46.
05 November 2024

Implementation of Amended MRFTA Enforcement Decree and Administrative Fine Notification to Promote Fair Trade Voluntary Compliance Programs

A set of amendments proposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”), which were intended to encourage companies to adopt a fair trade voluntary compliance program (“CP” or “CPs”) in accordance with the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “MRFTA”),went into effect on June 21, 2024. The amended Enforcement Decree of the MRFTA (the “Enforcement Decree”) specifies the criteria and process for evaluating CPs as well as standards for reducing the level of corrective orders and/or administrative fines for companies with outstanding CPs. In addition, an amended Notification on Specific Criteria for Imposing Administrative Fines for MRFTA Violations (the “Administrative Fine Notification”), which includes criteria for reducing administrative fines for companies operating CPs in exemplary ways, went into effect on August 28, 2024. The CP system, adopted in 2001, is designed to promote a culture of voluntary compliance with fair trade regulations. As of the end of 2022, approximately 730 major companies had adopted and implemented the CP system. The Korean Government has included the facilitation of the CP system as one of its National Governance Tasks amid the global demand for Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) management. Through the amended MRFTA and Enforcement Decree that went into effect on June 21, 2024, the KFTC established a legal basis for the CP system, including CP evaluation, incentives, as well as designation and cancellation of CP evaluation agencies. The KFTC also enacted a new set of rules – Rules for Operating and Evaluating Fair Trade CPs (the “CP Rules”), which contain detailed provisions pertaining to the CP evaluation process and related matters. The amended Administrative Fine Notification provides detailed criteria for reducing administrative fines for companies that have exemplary CPs, while strengthening the criteria for reducing such fines for cooperation with the KFTC. The key details of the amended MRFTA, Enforcement Decree and Administrative Fine Notification, and the new CP Rules are as follows: CP Evaluation Criteria and Procedure Requirements for requesting CP evaluation: A company that meets the requirements for CP implementation and has operated a CP for at least one year may request an evaluation. The KFTC evaluates the company’s performance in the immediately preceding year based on (i) criteria set forth in the CP Rules, including whether the company has met all requirements for CP implementation, and (ii) the CP’s operational status.   Criteria for additional points: Consecutive requests for CP Evaluation: Companies that apply for consecutive annual CP evaluations can earn up to one additional point depending on the period. Supporting other companies’ CP implementation: If the company’s partner implemented a CP with the company’s operational support and obtains a rating of B or higher, the company can earn points (0.7 points for each partner, up to a maximum of 4 points). Performance of voluntary dispute resolution body: Companies may earn 0.2 points for participating in a CP event and submitting survey responses, 0.4 points for presenting a case study, 0.4 points for providing materials (e.g., CP operating materials), 0.7 points for establishing an internal voluntary dispute resolution body, and 0.3 points for receiving and processing dispute claims. Rating withholding and adjustment: CP evaluation ratings may be withheld, adjusted, invalidated, or not granted if they were assigned based on inappropriate grounds. Requirements for Incentives Including Fine Reduction Fine reduction: The fine may be reduced by a maximum of 20%. For a rigorous evaluation, companies rated AA or higher are subject to an in-depth interview – in addition to the existing document/on-site evaluations. A one-time reduction of up to 10% (for AA rating) or 15% (for AAA rating) based on the fine after the second adjustment, is allowed once during the rating’s validity. However, an additional fine reduction of up to 5% may be granted if the company proves that it detected a violation through an effective CP operation and ceased the violation prior to the commencement of the investigation. A reduction of the fine is allowed only once during the rating’s validity (two years). In addition, a violation of law is not eligible for a fine reduction or mitigation of a corrective order, even when a company meets the evaluation criteria if (i) the violation occurred before adopting the CP, (ii) the violation involves certain types of hardcore cartels (e.g., bid rigging) that raise significant anti-competitive issues, or (iii) high-level officers of the company are directly involved in the violation. Mitigation of corrective order: A one-time mitigation during the rating’s validity may apply to the level of required public disclosure of a violation of law. Public disclosure by publication: The size and number of publications may be reduced by one level (for AA rating) or two levels (for AAA rating). Public disclosure on the business premises or through electronic media: The period of disclosure may be reduced. Not eligible for reduction or mitigation: Violations involving the following cases are not eligible for fine reduction or the mitigation of a corrective order, as they are contrary to the CP system’s purpose of preventing legal violations: When the company’s employee in charge of the CP is involved in the violation; When the violation occurred before the implementation of the CP; If the violation involves certain types of hardcore cartels (e.g., price fixing, output restriction, bid rigging, market allocation, or collusion on transaction/payment terms); or When high-level officers of the company (e.g., directors) are directly involved in the violation. Evaluation Costs and Designation of Evaluation Agency Evaluation costs: Based on the principle of “payment by beneficiary” (i.e., the party benefiting from the relevant system should bear the costs), the company bears the cost of the CP evaluation (KRW 6.6 million for the initial evaluation and KRW 4.4 million for subsequent evaluations). However, the evaluation costs are reduced for medium-sized and small businesses as follows: For medium-sized companies or institutions with annual sales of less than KRW 300 billion, the evaluation cost is reduced by 50% (i.e., KRW 3.3 million for the initial evaluation and KRW 2.2 million for subsequent evaluations). Small businesses and companies with an AAA rating in the previous year’s CP evaluation are entirely exempt from the evaluation costs. Designation of evaluation agency: The KFTC may designate the Korea Fair Trade Mediation Agency (which is currently conducting CP evaluations) or other institutions that have issued fair trade-related certifications and performed evaluations for at least two years, as evaluation agencies and provide notice thereof. Going forward, the KFTC is expected to continue to promote CPs to ensure that CPs become an integral part of business management (as was mentioned in the KFTC’s Enforcement Plan for 2024). Various incentives, such as exemption from official investigations, adjustment of the level of public disclosure order, fine reduction, among others, are provided based on the results of CP evaluations. Accordingly, companies should strive to obtain a high rating in the CP evaluation through the implementation and operation of CP systems that align with the amended requirements. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=30465    
05 November 2024

Prior Disclosure of Insider Transactions Becomes Mandatory for Listed Companies

An amendment to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the “Amended FSCMA”) was promulgated on January 23, 2024, to require the prior disclosure of insider transactions. Specifically,if any executive or major shareholder of a listed company (an “Insider”) intends to buy or sell “Specified Securities” issued by the company (which include equity securities (e.g., stocks), convertible bonds, bonds with warrants and related depository receipts) in an amount exceeding a certain threshold, they must disclose information about the transaction in advance of the scheduled trading date. In line with the Amended FSCMA, corresponding amendments were made to the following: (i) the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA (the “Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree”), (ii) the Regulations on Disgorgement of Short-Swing Profits and Unfair Trading Investigation and Report, Etc. (the “Amended Short-Swing Profits Regulations”), and (iii) the Capital Markets Investigation Operations Manual (the “Amended Investigation Manual”) on July 9, 2024. These amendments, along with the Amended FSCMA, entered into force on July 24, 2024 (collectively, the “Amended FSCMA Regulations”). Since the Financial Services Commission’s announcement in September 2022 (available in Korean, Link), the Amended FSCMA Regulations have been under continuous discussion due to market concerns over potential declines in stock prices from large-scale insider sales. Below, we have outlined key details about the prior disclosure requirement for insider transactions involving listed companies under the Amended FSCMA Regulations. With the implementation of the prior disclosure requirement for insider trading, any Insider who intends to buy or sell Specified Securities issued by that company in an amount exceeding a certain threshold must disclose the purpose, price, volume and period of the transfer at least 30 days prior to the scheduled trading date. Scope of Insiders Subject to Prior Disclosure Requirement Executives and major shareholders of listed companies are classified as Insiders subject to the prior disclosure requirement. Here, “executives” include not only directors and auditors, but also de facto executives, such as those responsible for giving work orders; and a “major shareholder” is defined as any shareholder who (i) holds at least 10% of the shares in the listed company, or (ii) has the power to exert de facto influence over the management of the company (Article 173-3 (1) of the Amended FSCMA). However, financial investors who are expected to (i) have a relatively higher level of internal control standards, and (ii) be less likely to misuse material non-public information (such as pension funds, collective investment vehicles (e.g., private equity funds, including special purpose companies), banks, insurance companies, specialized credit finance companies, financial investment businesses, venture capital firms and the Korea SMEs and Startups Agency) are not subject to the prior disclosure requirement. Furthermore, in order to ensure the equal treatment of domestic and foreign investors, foreign investors with a status equivalent to domestic financial investors are also excluded from being subject to the prior disclosure requirement (Article 200-3 (1) of the Amended FSCMA). Scope of Transactions Subject to Prior Disclosure Requirement The prior disclosure requirement applies when an insider subject to the requirement buys, sells or otherwise trades Specified Securities issued by the relevant listed company (which include equity securities (e.g., stocks), convertible bonds, bonds with warrants and related depository receipts) (Article 173-3 (1) of the Amended FSCMA). The reporting requirement is exempted when the aggregate trading volume and value of the Specified Securities over the six months prior to the start date of trading and during the trading period are both (i) less than 1% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares of the listed company, and (ii) less than KRW 5 billion. Furthermore, the prior disclosure requirement does not apply to instances where transactions are executed for unavoidable reasons. These include situations (i) where there is no risk of misuse of material non-public information, including when the sale or purchase of shares is inevitable due to a statutory requirement, or is intended for stabilization or market creation,[1] and (ii) where transactions are conducted as a result of external factors, such as succession/inheritance, share dividends, mergers and acquisitions involving the transfer or acquisition of shares, acquisitions or disposals of shares due to split-ups or mergers, or covering (or reverse trading) due to a decrease in the collateral value of shares. Procedures and Method of Prior Disclosure of Insider Transactions Specifically, the parties subject to the prior disclosure requirement must specify the (anticipated) trading amount, price, volume and period of the Specified Securities to be traded in their transaction plan reports. This information must be reported to the Securities and Futures Commission and the Korea Exchange, and publicly disclosed at least 30 days before the trading commences (Article 173-3 (3) of the Amended FSCMA, Article 200-3 (3) of the Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree, and Article 9-4 of the Amended Short-Swing Profits Regulations). As the transaction plan must be reported 30 days before the commencement of the transaction, the reporting requirement applies to transactions for which payment is made on or after August 23, 2024 (and which are executed by floor trading on August 21, 2024), which is 30 days after the effective date of the amended FSCMA (July 24, 2024). In addition, a party who has previously reported a transaction plan is not permitted to report a new one until the implementation of the previous plan is completed (Article 173-3 (2) of the Amended FSCMA). In principle, parties subject to the prior disclosure requirement must trade the Specified Securities in accordance with the transaction plans they reported. However, the Amended FSCMA allows the transaction amount to deviate by up to 30% from the amount specified in the transaction plan, providing flexibility to the parties in responding to changing market conditions (Article 173-3 (3) of the Amended FSCMA and Article 200-3 (6) of the Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree). Unavoidable Circumstances in Which Transaction Plans May Be Withdrawn (Article 173-3 (4) of the Amended FSCMA, Article 200-3 (7) of the Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree, and Articles 9-6 and 9-7 of the Amended Short-Swing Profits Regulations) A transaction plan may be withdrawn under unavoidable circumstances, such as (i) the death or bankruptcy of the filing party, (ii) a significant amount of loss anticipated due to increased market volatility (i.e., where the relevant stock price changes by 30% or more from the closing price of the day preceding the reporting date of the transaction plan), (iii) the impossibility of executing a sales or purchase transaction due to reasons attributable to the counterparty, or (iv) rapidly changing market conditions (e.g., the delisting of the relevant company, a suspension of trading, etc.) after the submission of the transaction plan. Administrative Fines for Violations of Prior Disclosure Obligations for Insider Trading (Articles 429 (5) and 429 (6) of the Amended FSCMA, Articles 379 (6) and 379 (7) of the Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree, and Attached Table 2-3 of the Amended Investigation Manual) Failing to disclose or falsely disclosing a transaction plan, failing to implement the relevant transaction plan, or any other violation of the disclosure obligations, can result in an administrative fine of 0.02% of the listed company’s market capitalization, up to KRW 2 billion maximum. The Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree includes detailed provisions allowing administrative fines to be imposed differently depending on certain factors, such as market capitalization, trading amount and the severity of the violation. The purpose of enforcing the prior disclosure requirement for insider trading is to enhance the transparency and predictability of large-scale insider transactions, thereby preventing unfair trading practices and safeguarding general investors. For insiders, including major shareholders, the prior disclosure of substantial share sales can help mitigate the risk of raising unnecessary suspicions about the use of non-public information in these transactions. For major shareholders, however, there may be a number of factors to take into account when reviewing transaction structures for large-scale share trading. As major shareholders are now required to disclose information about their large-scale transactions in advance, they will inevitably be exposed to the risk of stock price fluctuations from the date of disclosure until the date of transaction. It is also worth noting that under the Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree, transactions of institutional investors (e.g., private equity funds), mergers and acquisitions, and transactions for corporate restructuring (e.g., acquisitions or disposals of shares due to split-ups or mergers) are exempt from the prior disclosure requirement. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=30461 Footnotes [1] Where, exceptions to the disgorgement of short-swing profits apply mutatis mutandis under Article 198, Subparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Amended FSCMA Enforcement Decree.
05 November 2024
Content supplied by Kim & Chang