INSIGHTS

Newsletters
Kim & Chang Legal Newsletter (2026 Issue 2) This is a quaterly update of legal developments in Korea from Kim & Chang. This issue includes: Changes in Corporate Reorganization Regulations After Introduction of Directors’ Fiduciary Duty to Protect Shareholder Interests KFTC’s Proposed Amendments to Administrative Fine Notifications Under MRFTA and Related Laws Korea’s New “K-Discovery” System Facilitating Evidence-Gathering in Disputes to Take Effect in Some Litigation Contexts in February 2028 Implementation of KFTC’s Revised Guidelines for Labeling and Advertising Concerning Recommendations and Endorsements Proposed Amendment to FSCMA Introducing “Fair Value” for Mergers of Listed Companies Passes National Policy Committee EU’s PPWR/ESPR Enforcement Countdown Enactment of End-of-Life Battery Act Korean Supreme Court Confirms Legality of National Tax Service’s Retroactive Real Estate Appraisal Program Amendment to Foreign Exchange Transactions Act ? Mandatory Registration of Virtual Asset Transfer Businesses, Restructuring of Specialized Foreign Exchange Business Categories Summary of FSS’s 2026 Insurance Sector Financial Supervision Business Briefing Key Features and Implications of 2026 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Revised Rules of Arbitration Key Outcomes of US?China Summit in May 2026 and China’s Recent Foreign and Trade Policy Updates Update on Legislative and MOEL Regulatory Trends Regarding Comprehensive Wage Schemes Key Trends in Bargaining Disputes Following Implementation of Yellow Envelope Act Amendment to REITs Approval Guidelines to Revitalize REIT System Enhancement of EHS Regulations: Introduction of Safety and Health Information Disclosure System and Sanctions on Risk Assessment, Etc. Promulgation and Enforcement of Amendment to FSCMA Introducing Cornerstone Investor System Financial Services Commission’s Announcement of K-Transition Finance Supreme Court Ruling on Tax Deductibility of Disability Employment Levy KMCC Resumes Operations Following Establishment of “Six-Member Panel” To view the newsletter, please click on the link below. Kim & Chang Legal Newsletter (2026 Issue 2) .content_view .view_area a { color: #2c3e50; text-decoration: none; }
2026.07.14

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
Implementation of Artificial Intelligence Guidelines in Financial Sector With the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), the financial sector is actively adopting AI not only for back-office operations but also for financial services and internal control functions. Considering these industry trends, financial authorities have issued guidance on how to secure the safety and reliability of AI in the financial sector, including the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector (issued by the Financial Services Commission (the “FSC”) in July 2021), the AI Development and Utilization Guidelines for the Financial Sector (issued by the FSC and others in August 2022), and the AI Security Guidelines for the Financial Sector (issued by Financial Security Institute (“FSI”) in April 2023). Since then, as AI technologies such as generative AI and agentic AI have been incorporated in customer services in the financial sector, financial institutions have established autonomous AI governance frameworks to manage AI risks more systematically. On December 22, 2025, the FSC announced the “(Proposed) AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector” and its plans to amend and integrate existing AI-related guidelines through the AI council in the financial sector, ahead of the enforcement of the Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust (the “AI Basic Act”). Under the proposed amendment, seven major financial AI principles—governance, legality, supplemental use, reliability, financial stability, good faith, and security—that financial companies and others must comply with when using AI have been announced. To support the implementation of the AI guidelines in the financial sector, in January 2026, the Financial Supervisory Service (“FSS”) prepared the “(Proposed) AI Risk Management Framework for the Financial Sector (“AI RMF”),” which is intended to serve as a reference framework for AI risk management, and the FSI prepared the “(Proposed) Working-Level Guide on AI Security for the Financial Sector,” which is intended to ensure AI system security (the aforementioned three proposed guidelines are collectively referred to as the “Drafts for Collection of Feedback”). Thereafter, on June 18, 2026, the FSC unveiled the final version of the “Guidelines on AI in the Financial Sector (the “AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector”)” which incorporated feedback collected from the financial sector and additionally included measures to manage ultra-high-performance AI. On June 19, 2026, the FSI issued the “Guidance on AI Security for the Financial Sector” (the “Financial Sector AI Security Guidance”), which provides practical implementation guidance for the security principles set forth in the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector, and on June 22, 2026, the FSS issued the final version of the “AI Risk Management Framework for the Financial Sector” (the “Financial Sector AI RMF”), which elaborates on the governance principles set forth in the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector (these three guidelines are collectively referred to as the “Financial Sector AI Guidelines, Etc.”). Please refer to our newsletter dated January 5, 2026 (Link) for the key details of the Drafts for Collection of Feedback. The key changes made in the final version from the Drafts for Collection of Feedback are as follows: 1. Key Changes (1) AI Guidelines in Financial Sector The definition of “financial companies and others” was expressly expanded to include virtual asset service providers, financial holding companies, and other relevant entities, thereby clarifying that the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector also apply to such entities[1]; The scope of certain principles was expanded from “high-impact AI,” (as defined under the AI Basic Act) to "high-risk AI” (as defined under the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector); Low-risk AI services were further illustrated as services that support in-house operations or assist/supplement employees' work that does not directly affect customers, such as news summaries, translations, and/or code generation; Human intervention principle and emergency stop (kill switch) measures were added to address situations in which ultra-high-performance AI, such as Claude Mythos, may act in a manner that deviates from human intention; It was further provided that, where financial companies and others use AI systems in the form of SaaS, they must, as AI deployers, continuously monitor and manage whether sufficient technical measures have been established and operated to ensure the security of the AI developers; and With respect to the security principle, the guidelines added guidance on the “use of AI for security purposes” and data protection controls to be implemented as an alternative to network separation, where such separation is relaxed. (2) Financial Sector AI Security Guidance It was clarified that, in order to ensure and maintain the security of AI systems, regular inspections and remediation measures are required, and that such inspections must be carried out by independent personnel who are not involved in the planning, development, or operation of the AI systems. It was also added that, where the service is of high importance or high risk, objective verification by a third party is recommended; and “Practical Tip” was included to provide specific guidance and examples from a practical perspective. (3) Financial Sector AI RMF The descriptions of risk mitigation measures related to the principles of reliability and security among the examples of AI risk mitigation measures have been partially revised; and As a risk mitigation measure under the security principle, the introduction of an security-assessed external solution or the implementation of third-party security verification (AI red teaming) is recommended. 2. Response Strategies Although the Financial Sector AI Guidelines, Etc. are self-established guidelines that are not legally binding, it is advisable for financial companies and others subject to such guidelines to review government guidelines related to the use of AI technology, including the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector, the AI Basic Act and its subordinate laws and regulations (the “AI Basic Laws”)[2] and guidelines, and the Personal Information Protection Commission's AI-related guidelines based on their own circumstances and establish a governance framework that can be effectively implemented in practice.[3] Specifically, financial companies and others need to consider the following response measures: Establishment of AI Governance Framework: It is necessary to establish a framework based on the seven financial AI principles through, among others, establishing a decision-making body, organizing a dedicated AI risk management team, defining roles and responsibilities (R&R) across departments throughout the AI lifecycle, establishing AI lifecycle work processes and enacting and amending bylaws and manuals related to AI. Establishment of Risk Assessment and Management Measures: It is necessary to establish a risk assessment framework for AI services, determine risk levels by referring to the Financial Sector AI RMF, and prepare differentiated management measures for each risk level. In particular, it would be advisable to apply the enhanced control recommended by the guidelines to “high-impact AI” under the AI Basic Act (e.g., recruitment, loan review, etc.) and AI services assessed as “high-risk AI” under the company's AI RMF. Reflection in Responsibilities Structure: It may be appropriate to reflect AI-related internal control and risk management responsibilities in the responsibilities structure based on the examples provided by the Financial Sector AI RMF. Security Management: When SaaS AI systems or external APIs are used, it is necessary to verify whether the requirements for alternative controls to network separation are satisfied and establish a security management framework. Together with the issuance of the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector, the FSC announced that it would review subtasks through taskforces and other channels beginning in the second half of 2026, including measures for institutional improvements needed to promote AI Transformation (“AX”) in the financial sector, risk management measures for AI adoption, and pilot program operation plans for testing initiatives such as AI agents. Financial companies and others that are actively utilizing AI should (i) establish and enhance AI governance frameworks in response to the implementation of the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector, (ii) continuously monitor the developments in the AI Basic Laws and follow-up regulatory discussions by the financial authorities, and (iii) proactively advance their response frameworks. In addition, the FSC is currently preparing measures to address AI security threats in the financial sector in case ultra-high-performance AI is abused in the security sector, especially in hacking. As part of this effort, the FSC is gradually relaxing regulations[4] on network separation for the use of AI for security purposes, including identifying vulnerabilities of using AI and establishing defense systems through security SaaS solutions (see the FSC's press release dated May 26, 2026, entitled “Meeting on Countermeasures against Security Threats in the Financial Sector Related to High-Performance AI”). As for the financial companies participating in these initiatives, establishing an AI governance framework is an essential task. In addition, large financial companies, particularly their AI security departments, have established and implemented roadmaps to prepare for security threats that may arise from ultra-high-performance AI and establish frameworks for AI security and security through AI (“Security for AI, AI for Security”). Meanwhile, AI strategy departments responsible for promoting AX are enhancing their AX implementation strategies in light of the gradual relaxation of network-separation requirements. Taken together, these regulatory and technological developments suggest that, for financial institutions using AI in offering of financial products and services, a key task in the second half of 2026 will be to design and implement an integrated AI governance, risk management, and compliance framework from a holistic perspective encompassing legal, technological, and security considerations. Accordingly, financial institutions and others will need to enhance the AI technology and risk management capabilities of their employees and relevant departments, and establish a medium to long-term roadmap in order to respond proactively to the era of sweeping financial AX transformation. [1] For reference, non-financial companies (e.g., fintech companies) may also be subject to the guidelines if the results of using AI systems by the non-financial companies may affect the offering of financial transactions. [2] While the AI Basic Laws prevail in areas where the AI Basic Laws and the Financial Sector AI Guidelines, Etc. overlap, the Financial Sector AI Guidelines, Etc. apply to specialized financial matters not addressed in the AI Basic Laws. Accordingly, it is critical to establish a response framework by clearly distinguishing the scope of application between the two sets of rules. [3] s provided in the AI Guidelines in the Financial Sector, each company may, at its own discretion, determine the level of application of the guidelines by taking into account all of its level of AI use, the impact of AI use, its own environment and resources, including human and physical resources, types of services, and the provisions of the AI Basic Laws, etc. [4] 49 financial companies with dedicated CISOs can apply under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act if they meet the following requirements: total assets of a certain size (total assets of KRW 10 trillion or more) and the number of employees (number of full-time employees of 1,000 or more). [Korean Version]
2026.07.08

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
A Stricter Interpretation of the “Consideration for Prescribed Work” Requirement in Ordinary Wages: A New Defense Strategy for Employers to Consider following abolishment of the “Fixedness” Requirement Ordinary wages serve as the basis for calculating overtime, nighttime, and holiday-work premiums, as well as statutory severance pay. Consequently, when a particular allowance is included in ordinary wages, this will normally lead to an increase in the calculation of various statutory premiums and severance pay, significantly raising an employer’s overall labor cost burden. In December 2024, the Supreme Court of Korea handed down a new en banc decision on ordinary wages (Supreme Court Decision 2020Da247190, decided December 19, 2024), which effectively eliminated the concept of “fixedness” — previously one of the core criteria for determining ordinary wages. As a result, many companies that had managed the risk of various allowances being classified as ordinary wages by, among other things, attaching continued-employment conditions to such allowances, now face the serious risk of increased labor costs stemming from an expanded scope of ordinary wages. However, in a recent ordinary-wage lawsuit that Kim & Chang handled on behalf of a major Korean corporation, the Seoul Central District Court applied a stricter standard in determining whether the requirement of “consideration for prescribed work” (i.e., whether the allowance was paid as compensation for work performed during prescribed working hours) was firmly established, and as a result, dismissed a substantial portion of the employees’ wage claims. The key findings are set out below. 1. Factors on Whether Each Allowance Constitutes Ordinary Wages In this decision, the Court conducted a granular analysis of whether each allowance satisfied the “consideration for prescribed work” requirement, taking into account factors such as the historical background of each allowance’s introduction, the basis for its payment, and the actual manner in which it was administered. (1) Homecoming Travel Allowance (Ordinary Wage: Yes): The Court held that this allowance constituted ordinary wages, noting that it was stipulated as a component of the annual salary in the company’s rules of employment (“ROE”) and other internal regulations, that it was paid on a regular and uniform basis each year in accordance with fixed criteria, and that the mere fact it was paid around the same time as national holidays was not sufficient to characterize it as a welfare benefit. (2) Holiday Ceremonial Allowance (Ordinary Wage: No): The Court held that this allowance lacked the character of consideration for prescribed work and therefore did not constitute ordinary wages. Key factors included: there was no payment basis in the company’s ROE or collective bargaining agreement, and it was paid each year through an internal approval process for purposes such as “boosting employee morale”; dispatched workers who were not employees of the company were also included among the recipients; and the amount paid was a small, fixed sum. (3) Company Contribution to Individual Pension Plans (Ordinary Wage: No): The Court held that this contribution was a welfare benefit contingent upon an individual employee’s incidental choice of whether to enroll in a personal pension product, as it was provided only to employees who had voluntarily applied for enrollment and was not paid to employees who had not enrolled or who had terminated their plans mid-course. Accordingly, the Court found that this benefit lacked the character of consideration for prescribed work and did not constitute ordinary wages. (4) Fixed Overtime Allowance (Ordinary Wage: No): Although this allowance had been paid to office workers as a fixed monthly amount, the Court found, based on the history of this allowance’s introduction and its actual administration, that it was paid as compensation for “overtime work” exceeding prescribed working hours. The Court therefore held that it lacked the character of consideration for prescribed work and did not constitute ordinary wages. 2. The Need to Reassess the Risks Associated to Ordinary Wages from the New Perspective of “Consideration for Prescribed Work” This decision by the Court is significant in that it strictly interpreted the “Consideration for Prescribed Work” requirement and thereby dismissed a substantial portion of the employees’ ordinary-wage claims. While the consideration-for-prescribed-work requirement has long been an important indicator of ordinary wages, it had been overshadowed by the “fixedness” requirement and other criteria, and thus had not carried great weight in determining whether specific allowances constituted ordinary wages. Now, however, the fixedness requirement has been effectively abolished by this new Supreme Court en banc decision, and this ruling appears to have taken that development as an opportunity to apply a rigorous standard in assessing whether the consideration-for-prescribed-work requirement was met. In light of this, employers should not hastily conclude that any given allowance constitutes ordinary wages simply because the fixedness requirement has been eliminated. Instead, in view of the legal principles set forth in this decision, employers should re-examine whether each allowance provided to employees was truly paid as consideration for prescribed work. In short, the abolishment of the fixedness requirement does not mean that every allowance to which a continued-employment condition or similar condition had been attached is deemed ordinary wages. Only allowances that satisfy the separate and important requirement of “Consideration for Prescribed Work” will qualify as ordinary wages. Accordingly, employers should analyze the substance of each allowance — including the manner in which it is paid — to determine whether it is paid as consideration for prescribed work or whether it is paid on a discretionary basis, such as for welfare or motivational purposes. Furthermore, when negotiating with labor unions and other counterparts, employers should refrain from taking the position that all allowances automatically constitute ordinary wages, and should instead make effective use of the consideration-for-prescribed-work requirement. [Korean Verision]
2026.06.23

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
KFTC Clarifies Substantiation Duty for AI and New-Technology Advertising 1. What You Need to Know On June 23, 2026, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) announced proposed amendments that clarify the substantiation requirements for performance claims involving artificial intelligence (“AI”) and other new technologies, as well as the procedures for such submissions. The pre-legislative notice also introduces a self-assessment checklist for businesses to test their own substantiation. When the requirements go into effect, businesses will face heavier substantiation burdens for any claims in labeling or advertising. The comment period runs through July 13, 2026. 2. Background Under Article 5 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (the “Display Advertising Act”), an advertiser has the burden of proof for any factual assertions in its labeling and advertising, allowing the KFTC to assess potential violations quickly. The KFTC’s Guidelines on the Operation of Substantiation for Labeling and Advertising (the “Substantiation Guidelines”) set out the detailed standards for requesting, reviewing, and processing substantiation materials, and they have long served as the practical reference point for which claims require proof and how that proof is evaluated. With the steady release of products and services that emphasize AI performance, there has been uncertainty as to whether new-technology labeling and advertising had been properly substantiated, particularly with respect to claims relating to effects on the human body, safety, and performance. The procedures for submission of such information had been broad ? upon request, substantiation data needed to be provided within 15 days from receipt of a request, with the prior Guidelines defining the grounds for extending the submission period broadly, as “force majeure such as natural disaster.” Such language gave businesses limited predictability. 3. What the KFTC Proposed The amendments make four principal changes. (1) Clarified Substantiation Duty for New-Technology Labeling and Advertising The KFTC clarified that substantiation is required even where a business advertises AI features or other new technologies. Drawing on its adjudicative precedents, it added illustrative expressions that warrant substantiation in relation to the human body, safety, and performance, including claims such as “improves concentration and memory,” “ingredients harmless to the human body,” “safer through AI technology,” and “○○% feather content,” as well as ranking claims such as “No. 1 in satisfaction” and “No. 1 in grade improvement.” (2) Defined Grounds for, and Shortened Period, for Extensions The KFTC replaced the broad “force majeure” formulation by importing the grounds for postponement under Article 76 of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The defined grounds now cover natural disaster, merger or acquisition, commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, bankruptcy, or comparable proceedings, seizure or temporary custody of books or evidentiary documents by an authorized agency, and serious disruption to business operations caused by fire or other disasters. To preserve the principle of “substantiate first, advertise second,” the KFTC also shortened the extension from 30 days to within 15 days from the date the ground ceases to exist. (3) Advertising Suspension Orders for Non-Submission If a business continues to advertise without submitting any substantiation within the submission period, the KFTC may order the suspension of that label or advertising. This makes clear that a business must secure substantiation in advance before actively promoting its products, and it allows the KFTC to quickly halt unfair labels or advertising to prevent consumer harm. We highlight the key differences between the current and proposed rules appear in the table below. [Current and Proposed Rules on the Substantiation Submission Period] Item Current Rules Proposed Rules Submission period Within 15 days of a request from the KFTC Unchanged (within 15 days) Grounds for extension Broad “force majeure such as natural disaster” Four specific grounds (reference to Article 76 of the Enforcement Decree) Extension period Up to 30 days after the grounds for extension cease Shortened to within 15 days after the grounds for extension cease Non-submission No express rule Advertising suspension order if materials are not submitted within the relevant period (4) New Self-Assessment Checklist for Businesses The KFTC introduced and distributed a checklist so that businesses clearly recognize their duty to prove any advertised facts and can test their own substantiation methods and standards. The checklist is organized into a first stage that addresses substantiation targets and general requirements before any labeling or advertising, and a second stage that addresses the submission period, submission method, and sanctions for non-submission once the KFTC requests substantiation. 3. Why This Matters The amendments tighten the substantiation burden for any business making factual claims in its labeling or advertising. Companies that promote AI or other new-technology performance, in particular, now have a stronger reason to secure objective, verifiable evidence beforehand. With the shortened extension period, from 30 days to 15, the practical window to assemble evidence after a KFTC request narrows as well. Businesses should review the factual claims in their advertising that relate to the human body, safety, the environment, performance, and new technology, and build a system that keeps scientific, objective supporting evidence, such as test results, survey results, expert opinions, and academic literature, on hand. Companies that use exclusivity or ranking claims such as “No. 1” or “the most” should also retain materials that prove the basis and objectivity of those claims. Failure to submit substantiating materials within the required period can lead to an advertising suspension order as well as administrative fines of up to KRW 100 million under Article 20(2)2 of the Display Advertising Act. 4. What to Watch Submit comments on the proposal by the July 13, 2026 deadline if your business may be affected. Track the KFTC’s review of stakeholder and inter-agency comments and its finalization of the amendments through a full committee meeting. Reassess existing advertising containing AI, new-technology, or ranking claims for adequate substantiation. Update internal response procedures to account for the shortened 15-day extension if substantiation is requested. Watch for the effective date and the final comparison table of the revised provisions. [Korean Version]
2026.06.23

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
South Korea’s Amended UCPA Now in Force: New Monetary Rewards for Preventing and Reporting Overseas Trade Secret Leaks To strengthen the protection of trade secrets, the amended Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (“UCPA”) took effect on May 28, 2026. This amendment introduces a monetary reward system aimed at encouraging the early detection and prevention of overseas trade secret leaks. Expanded Eligibility (UCPA Article 16): Rewards are now available to those who report overseas trade secret leaks, as well as to those who make a significant contribution to preventing them. Under the amended UCPA, specific details regarding the criteria, methods, and procedures for these payments are delegated to the Presidential Decree. Covered Offenses (UCPA Article 18(1)): The reward system specifically targets crimes involving the overseas leakage or misappropriation of trade secrets ? that is, the infringement of trade secrets that are used abroad, or that the infringer knows will be used abroad. Under this article, targeted offenses encompass: (i) acquiring, using, or leaking trade secrets for the purpose of obtaining unfair profits or causing damage to the trade secret holder, or continuously retaining them despite a demand for their return or deletion; (ii) acquiring trade secrets through unfair means such as theft, deception, or coercion; and (iii) acquiring or using trade secrets with the knowledge that an act falling under the aforementioned categories was involved. Specific Reward Criteria (Enforcement Decree & Payment Regulations): Pursuant to the UCPA amendment, the relevant Enforcement Decree and the "Regulations on the Payment of Rewards for Trade Secret Protection" were concurrently implemented to establish detailed payment standards: ? Rewards for Reporting: Up to KRW 200 million per case may be awarded to those who report violations or significantly contribute to investigations conducted by the Ministry of Intellectual Property (“MOIP”). The reward must be applied for to the Minister of the MOIP within 5 months from the date the case is forwarded for prosecution. ? Rewards for Merit: Up to KRW 5 million can be granted to individuals with a proven track record (3+ years) of contributing to the prevention of overseas leaks, selected either ex officio by the Minister of the MOIP or through relevant institutional recommendations. ? Reward Calculation & Additional Rewards: The reward amount is based on the seriousness of the violation and the applicant's contribution. Furthermore, once a court judgment becomes final and conclusive, an additional reward may be paid through deliberation within 6 months, factoring in the final sentencing. Application Timeline: For rewards for merit, an individual’s career history accumulated prior to the enforcement date (May 28, 2026) is recognized toward the 3-year eligibility requirement. In the case of rewards for reporting, the system applies to cases starting with the first case formally registered as a criminal matter by the MOIP after the enforcement date, meaning even violations that occurred before the enforcement date can be subject to these rewards. Legislative Background and Strategic Implications for Businesses Previously, while rewards for reporting and merit were already being paid for "industrial technology" under the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, the old UCPA reward system was strictly limited to the distribution of counterfeit goods bearing registered trademarks, offering no separate rewards for trade secret offenses. This amendment finally establishes a solid legal framework to reward those who protect trade secrets, enabling the early detection of leaks—a problem whose severe consequences have increasingly come to the forefront. With substantial financial rewards now authorized by the UCPA and its subordinate regulations, hidden corporate disputes are highly likely to come to light through active reporting. For multinational companies operating in or partnering with South Korea, this creates a critical incentive to strengthen internal compliance. To mitigate potential risks under this enhanced enforcement environment, companies should ensure they have robust compliance mechanisms in place. Specifically, organizations must carefully verify that no third-party trade secrets are inadvertently held or utilized within their operations, while also rigorously reviewing all external technical data to ensure it does not infringe upon another entity's proprietary rights. [Korean Version]
2026.06.18

Newsletters VIEW MORE

김·장 홍보

Kim & Chang Obtains Five Recognitions Including “South Korea Firm of the Year”

Kim & Chang was named as the “South Korea Firm of the Year” at the Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific Awards 2026. Our firm also won the “Tax Firm of the Year” award in the Practice Area Firm Awards, and two of our professionals were recognized for their expertise and capabilities.
VIEW MORE
169 Professionals “Recommended”

In the 2026 edition of Lexology Index: South Korea (formerly, WWL: Korea), 169 attorneys, patent attorneys and certified public accountants from Kim & Chang across 24 fields were selected as “Recommended” individuals for their expertise in their respective areas.
VIEW MORE
Named “South Korea National Law Firm of the Year”

Kim & Chang was recognized as the “South Korea National Law Firm of the Year” at the Chambers Asia-Pacific & Greater China Region Awards 2026. Since the first awards ceremony in 2010, our firm has been honored with this title eleven times.
VIEW MORE

웹접근성

김∙장 법률사무소는 장애인 및 비장애인 누구나 편리하게 웹서비스를 이용하실 수 있도록 웹접근성 준수 및 개선을 위하여 노력하고 있습니다.

김∙장 법률사무소는 앞으로도 모든 사용자들이 편리하게 서비스를 이용할 수 있도록 최선을 다하겠습니다.
불편사항은 lawkim@kimchang.com으로 연락주시면 친절하게 안내해드리겠습니다

레이어 닫기

The material on the Kim & Chang website is for general informational purposes only and should not be regarded as legal advice. The transmission or receipt of any information from this site is not intended to create nor constitute an attorney-client relationship. The content on this website is current only as of the date of its respective publication and may not reflect the most current status of the relevant laws, decisions and legal trends. Kim & Chang does not assume and disclaims any liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by said person’s use of or reliance upon the materials on this website, regardless of whether said loss or damage was directly or indirectly caused by inaccurate statements therein. Online viewers should consult with competent and professional legal counsel before acting upon any information provided by this website. All of the contents on this site are copyrighted by Kim & Chang. Any reproduction, distribution or retransmission of any materials posted on this website without prior written permission from Kim & Chang is strictly prohibited. Although we provide several links to other websites, please be advised that we have no control over the content of those sites.

Recently, there has been an increase in cases where the names of the firm, its attorneys, and other personnel have been used in connection with scams and other fraudulent activity. These include proposals regarding legal services, contracts, or investments; requests for payments or personal data; or employment offers or requests for payments in exchange for employment opportunities. Kim & Chang bears no responsibility or liability for any such unauthorized activity/communications, or issues arising therefrom.

We communicate with clients only through the authorized email and phone contact information found on our firm’s official website (www.kimchang.com). We do not utilize other communication channels for official business, including through non-Kim & Chang email addresses or phone numbers, text messages, or social networking services. Moreover, under no circumstances do we make individual requests for personal data or payment (apart from requests made pursuant to a duly executed engagement contract).

If you are the recipient of suspicious communications related to Kim & Chang or any individuals affiliated with the firm, please contact us at 02-3703-1114 or lawkim@kimchang.com

레이어 닫기