1.

Implementation of Amended Reward Regulations

On June 18, 2026, the KFTC implemented the amended Reward Regulations, which abolished the reward ceiling for reporting collusion (i.e., cartels) and other violations under the MRFTA and other relevant statutes, while raising the base calculation rate to 10% of the administrative surcharge. Designed to incentivize active whistleblowing by insiders—particularly regarding covert violations like collusion that are difficult to detect externally—these amended regulations carry significant implications for corporate compliance.
 

A.

Complete Abolition of Reward Ceiling

The amended Reward Regulations abolished the reward ceilings entirely, which had been previously set based on the type of violation (KRW 3 billion for unfair collusion, KRW 2 billion for unfair support, and KRW 500 million each for violations of the Fair Subcontracting Transactions Act, Fair Distribution Transactions Act and Fair Franchise Transactions Act). Accordingly, this change enables whistleblowers to receive substantially higher reward amounts in cases where significant surcharges are imposed.
 

B.

Increased and Unified Base Reward Calculation Rate (10% of Surcharge)

Previously, the formula for calculating rewards was complex, applying differentiated rates by surcharge bracket and then multiplying the surcharge amount by the reward rate. The amended Reward Regulations have simplified this by unifying the base payment amount as a flat 10% of the total surcharge, which is then multiplied by a reward rate corresponding to the level of evidence submitted by the whistleblower (Highest 100%, High 80%, Medium 50%, Low 30%). For example, where a whistleblower with “Highest”-level evidence reports collusion resulting in a surcharge of KRW 100 billion, previously the reward would have been calculated as KRW 2.85 billion (by adding 10% of the first KRW 5 billion, 5% of the portion between KRW 5 billion and KRW 20 billion, and 2% of the portion exceeding KRW 20 billion). Under the amended Reward Regulations, the reward may be calculated as KRW 10 billion—10% of the total surcharge. 
 

C.

Expanded Scope of Eligible Evidence for Unfair Support and Private Benefit (Tunneling)

Previously, only information related to “transaction details” and “transaction terms” was recognized as reward-eligible evidence. The amended Reward Regulations now also recognize information related to “intent to support” as eligible evidence. The KFTC explained that the change was made because, in cases of unfair support and private benefit (tunneling) acts, proving the “intent to support” is critical but extremely difficult to identify from the outside.
 

D.

Adjustment to Timing of Reward Payments

Previously, rewards were paid within three months after the KFTC’s decision, which created the risk that a reward could be paid even in cases where the KFTC’s decision was later overturned in litigation. To address this issue, the amended Reward Regulations introduce a two-stage payment system: where (i) a base reward is disbursed once the surcharge is initially paid into the national treasury, and (ii) the remaining reward is paid after all appeal procedures are concluded and the surcharge is finalized and paid.
 

2.

Implementation of Amended Case Procedure Rules

On September 28, 2026, the KFTC implemented the amended Case Procedure Rules, which newly established a basis for notifying whistleblowers when the KFTC examiner’s report is issued and allowing their participation in the pre-hearing opinion-gathering procedure. The amendment was pursued in order to provide more robust protection to whistleblowers’ procedural rights in the course of case handling, and to enhance the transparency and fairness of the deliberation process.
 

A.

New Requirement to Notify Whistleblowers of Examiner’s Report Issuance

Under the amended Case Procedure Rules, KFTC examiners are required to notify whistleblowers when submitting the examiner’s report to the Commission for deliberation. While the previous Case Procedure Rules required updates on major milestones—such as case commencement, investigation progress, hearing dates and final results—the amended Case Procedure Rules bridged a gap by adding the issuance of the examiner’s report to this list. As a result, whistleblowers are now able to track case progress earlier and engage more actively during deliberations.
 

B.

New Basis for Whistleblowers’ Participation in Pre-Hearing Opinion-Gathering Procedure

The pre-hearing opinion-gathering procedure is a procedure in which, prior to formal deliberation, the examiner and the respondent state their opinions before the Commissioners and organize the issues. Previously, only the examiner and the respondent were able to participate. However, the amended Case Procedure Rules also allow whistleblowers to request that the examiner initiate this procedure, and in such case, the term “examiner” as defined in Article 29 (3) and Articles 30 through 32 of the amended Case Procedure Rules encompass whistleblowers. This enables whistleblowers to participate in framing the issues prior to deliberation and to more actively represent their own interests in the proceedings.
 

3.

Implications

The implementation of the amended Reward Regulations and the amended Case Procedure Rules underscores the KFTC’s commitment to enhancing procedural due process, while incentivizing insiders’ whistleblowing to strengthen its detection capabilities. As whistleblowers gain both enhanced procedural rights and higher rewards, companies should consider conducting a major overhaul of their fair trade compliance management and case response systems at this time.
 

A.

Adapting to Expanded Procedural Rights and Higher Rewards for Whistleblowers

With the abolition of the reward cap and the increase in the base calculation rate (to 10% of the surcharge), insider reporting of covert collusive practices and unfair support acts is expected to surge. Furthermore, because the amended Case Procedure Rules allow whistleblowers to receive examination reports and participate in pre-hearing opinion-gathering, they are now able to actively shape issues before formal deliberation begins. Consequently, companies must update their internal tracking protocols and factor potential whistleblower participation into their pre-hearing defense strategies.
 

B.

Managing Heightened Risks of Heavier Sanctions

These regulatory changes compound legal risks as the KFTC steps up enforcement. In 2026, the KFTC launched comprehensive on-site investigations across major industries, such as energy and petrochemicals, imposing hundreds of billions of KRW in surcharges for collusion cases involving food and other everyday consumer goods. In addition, effective April 30, 2026, the KFTC implemented the amended Notice on Detailed Standards for Imposition of Surcharges, which substantially raised the base surcharge rate and strengthened aggravating factors for repeat offenders. Taken together, these developments suggest that the impact of a fair trade compliance violation can be severe. Companies with historical legal issues or recent compliance flags must bolster their MRFTA compliance by enhancing internal training and rigorously auditing their compliance controls both within and outside the company.