On February 10, 2026, the Uijeongbu District Court acquitted the chairperson of the conglomerate charged with a violation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (the “SAPA”). The court concluded that the chairperson could not be legally recognized as the Responsible Management Personnel (the “RMP”). This decision is a landmark as it provides the first judicial criteria for determining the RMP in an industrial accident case since the SAPA took effect on January 27, 2022.
In this case, the Prosecution indicted the group chairperson rather than the representative director of the company where the serious accident occurred (the “Company”), identifying the chairperson as the RMP responsible for the obligations under the SAPA. Kim & Chang, acting as sole counsel for both the chairperson and the company, successfully defended the case, resulting in a not guilty verdict for both.
The core legal issues were:
|
1. |
The criteria for defining the RMP as “the person who has the authority and responsibility to represent and oversee the business.” |
|
2. |
Whether a group chairperson, rather than the representative director of a specific subsidiary, can be deemed the RMP. |
The Prosecution argued that the chairperson held the RMP status based on (i) his position and career within the group, (ii) the group’s integrated management structure and unified operation of meetings and procedures, and (iii) his exercise of management control through direct instructions on comprehensive business issues.
Our firm argued extensively that the group chairperson should not be recognized as the RMP of a subsidiary company merely for attending group-level information-sharing meetings. To persuade the court, we conducted an in-depth analysis on the legislative history and purpose of the SAPA, as well as the past SAPA investigation cases and the relevant court precedents, and clarified the legal definition of the representative director under the current corporate law system. Furthermore, we utilized our extensive understanding in corporate governance to clarify the contextual meaning of various evidence (e.g., meetings and reports) submitted by the Prosecution. Through rigorous witness examination and oral arguments, we demonstrated that these interactions did not constitute the "direct oversight" required by the SAPA.
The court adopted our arguments, finding that receiving reports or attending group-level performance meetings is insufficient to establish a chairperson as the RMP. Specifically, the court clarified that to hold someone other than the representative director liable as the RMP, it must be proven that the individual possessed specific and substantial authority to represent and oversee the company’s business, and such authority rendered it impossible or significantly difficult for the representative director to fulfill the obligations under the SAPA.
This decision offers important guidance on the degree of involvement a major shareholder or chairperson can have in an affiliate’s safety and health management without being identified as the RMP. By recognizing the complexity of modern corporate decision-making process, the court’s decision clarifies how communications among the affiliated companies within the conglomerate could be viewed under the SAPA and develop improvement plans. Finally, this ruling is significant as it helps explain many of the SAPA’s broad and abstract legal concepts.
Related Topics
