INSIGHTS

Newsletters
Court Suspends First Bargaining Unit Separation Decision Issued Under the Yellow Envelope Act On September 18, 2026, the Seoul Administrative Court (14th Division) suspended the effect of a National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) decision that separated the bargaining unit of a subcontractor union at a steel manufacturer (the “Company”) (Seoul Administrative Court, Decision No. 2026Ah13227, the “Decision”). This is the first case in which a court has granted an application to suspend a Labor Relations Commission (“LRC”) decision separating bargaining units since the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the “TULRAA”), commonly known as the “Yellow Envelope Act,” took effect. As the LRC issues bargaining unit separation decisions involving subcontractor unions in a growing number of cases, the significance of the Decision reaches well beyond the parties to this dispute. Having represented the Company from the LRC stage onward, our firm secured this outcome through the preparation and strategy we built into the case from the outset. As principal-subcontractor bargaining under the amended TULRAA affects a wide range of companies, and because the Decision offers the first judicial guidance on how a company can preserve its collective bargaining position pending a ruling on the merits, we summarize the Decision and its practical implications below. 1. Background and Key Issue This matter arose from an application to separate principal and subcontractor bargaining units filed immediately after the amended TULRAA took effect on March 10, 2026, making it the first such case under the amended statute. Another subcontractor union had already served a collective bargaining demand on the Company when subcontractor unions affiliated with a different umbrella organization each filed their own applications to separate the bargaining units, in each case within days of the amendment taking effect. The Gyeongbuk Regional LRC granted those applications, and in June 2026, the NLRC issued a decision upholding the regional determination. The Company then filed an administrative action seeking revocation of the NLRC decision, together with an application to suspend its effect. The central issue was whether the bargaining unit separation decision would cause “irreparable harm.” We began from the premise that, so long as the review decision remained in effect, the Company would have to enter separate bargaining processes for each unit before any court had ruled on whether it was an employer at all or whether separation was warranted, and would risk criminal liability if it refused. Building on that premise, we quantified the resulting harm, highlighting concrete figures associated with the sharp rise in bargaining costs and the operational strain that multiple parallel bargaining units would bring. We further emphasized that, given the nature of collective labor relations, once bargaining is under way and a labor relations framework has formed, the parties cannot be restored to their former positions even if the Company ultimately prevails on the merits. Finally, we emphasized that with no case law yet established on employer status or the necessity of bargaining unit separation under the amended TULRAA, labor relations should not be shaped in advance on the strength of LRC decisions alone, particularly where those decisions have reached inconsistent results. 2. The Decision The Seoul Administrative Court found an urgent need to suspend the effect of the NLRC decision in order to prevent irreparable harm to the Company, and found no basis to conclude that such suspension would materially harm the public welfare. The Court accordingly suspended the effect of the decision until 60 days after the date of the first instance judgment on the merits. 3. Implications The Decision establishes that where a company substantiates the requirements for suspension, in particular irreparable harm and urgent necessity, a court may suspend the effect of an LRC decision concerning principal-subcontractor bargaining under the amended TULRAA even before judgment on the merits. That said, the Decision is only a provisional ruling on suspension, and thus the outcome of the case on the merits will bear close monitoring. For companies that have received a comparable bargaining unit separation decision, or a determination recognizing employer status under the amended TULRAA, an application for suspension filed at the time a union’s bargaining demand becomes concrete may prove a practical and effective response. Given how long a judgment on the merits can take, suspension is the only way to keep a contested legal position from becoming entrenched, in practice, as an established labor-management relationship. Companies should therefore begin assembling the evidence needed to substantiate their anticipated damages/harm in concrete terms, including bargaining costs, management impact, and the course of bargaining to date, as early as the LRC stage. The Decision illustrates that with thorough preparation, provisional judicial protection remains available even amid the uncertainty of the amended TULRAA’s early implementation, and it offers a useful reference point for companies facing similar disputes. [Korean Version]
2026.09.22

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
Announcement of Proposed Amendments to Enforcement Decree of FSCMA for Fair Valuation and Enhanced Disclosure of Listed Company M&A As previously covered, an amendment of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the “FSCMA”) was promulgated on September 8, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on December 9, 2026 (Link). Among other things, the amendment changes the valuation method of listed companies from market price to fair value, and mandates board review and external appraisal, for mergers, spin-offs or spin-off mergers, transfers or acquisitions of material businesses or assets, and comprehensive share exchanges or transfers (each, an “M&A Transaction”). Accordingly, in prescribing detailed requirements and standards and the content and method of disclosures for the valuation of M&A Transactions, the Financial Services Commission (the “FSC”) announced a proposed amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA and a proposed amendment to the Regulation on Issuance and Disclosure of Securities (the “Regulation on Issuance and Disclosure”) for a 20-day public comment period to run from September 16, 2026 to October 6, 2026 (Link). These proposals are drawing significant attention from the market and companies as they are expected to bring about considerable practical changes to the process by which M&A Transactions of listed companies are conducted, including in respect of board of directors’ deliberations and resolutions, disclosures, and shareholder meeting approvals. The key details of the proposed amendments are as follows. 1. Removal of Prescribed Calculation Methods for Transaction Value and Appraisal Price of M&A Transactions Following the amendments to the FSCMA, the "valuation of M&A Transactions" and the "appraisal price for dissenting shareholders' stock purchase rights" will now be determined based on fair value, which comprehensively considers market price, asset value (net assets divided by the total number of issued shares), and earnings value (future earnings value reasonably estimated by applying valuation models such as the discounted cash flow (DCF) model or dividend discount model (DDM)). The detailed calculation methods previously prescribed under the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA will accordingly be abandoned. Previously, the Enforcement Decree prescribed detailed calculation methods as follows: Valuation of M&A Transactions ? Calculated as the arithmetic mean of the closing prices over the past one month, one week, and most recent day, based on the day preceding the earlier of the contract date or the date of board resolution (allowing a discount or premium within a 10% range) (Article 176-5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA). Appraisal Price for Dissenting Shareholders’ Stock Purchase Rights ? Calculated as the arithmetic mean of the closing prices over the past two months, one month, and one week, based on the day preceding the date of board resolution (Article 176-7 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA). 2. Additional Disclosure Items and Methods for Board of Directors’ Statement of Opinion Under the amended FSCMA, when resolving on an M&A Transaction, the board of directors must prepare and disclose a statement of opinion regarding the purpose, expected effects, and fairness of the transaction value of the M&A Transaction. The proposed amendment to the Enforcement Decree further requires that if any measures were taken to ensure the fairness of the transaction (e.g., establishing a special committee), the details of such measures be disclosed in the Board of Directors’ Statement of Opinion. The Board of Directors’ Statement of Opinion is to be disclosed both in the body and as attachment to the Securities Registration Statement, and also as attachment to the Report on Major Corporate Events (Article 176-5 (6) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA; Article 5-13-3 of the Regulation on Issuance and Disclosure). 3. Expansion of External Appraisal Review and Disclosure The proposed amendment to the Enforcement Decree expands on the scope of appraisal items subject to external appraisal institution review beyond the existing scope of fairness of transaction value and its terms and conditions to terms including: (i) The appropriateness of the valuation method used; (ii) The reasonableness of the key assumptions underlying the valuation; and (iii) Any difficulties encountered in the appraisal process. The details of the external appraisal must also be disclosed in the body and as attachment to the Securities Registration Statement and as attachment to the Report on Major Corporate Events (Article 176-5 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA; Article 5-13 of the Regulation on Issuance and Disclosure). The requirement aims at facilitating the provision of high-quality information to shareholders for their verification and review of the procedures and determinations through which the M&A Transaction was pursued. 4. Disclosure for Specification of Interest in Mergers Between Affiliates Under the amended FSCMA, in the event of an M&A Transaction between a listed company and an affiliate, the interest relationship between the specially related parties, including family, relatives, parent companies, and affiliates of the company and the counterparty of the transaction, as defined under Article 9 (1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law (“FTL”), must be disclosed. The proposed amendment of the Enforcement Decree requires specific items, including investments, debt guarantees, concurrent holding of executive offices, and details of shareholding changes between the specially related parties and the counterparty corporation, to be disclosed in the body of the Securities Registration Statement (Article 176-5 (18) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA; Article 5-16 of the Regulation on Issuance and Disclosure). The requirement aims at allowing shareholders and investors to more clearly grasp the interest relationships among transaction parties, in proactively preventing transaction terms from biasing toward specific shareholders. 5. Refinement of Procedures for Determining Appraisal Prices for Stock Purchase Rights Previously, if consultations between a listed company and its shareholders regarding the appraisal price for stock purchase rights failed, price was calculated and presented mechanically based on a prescribed formula under the relevant regulations. However, under the amended FSCMA, the proposed price must now consider market price, asset value, and earnings value. The proposed amendment to the Enforcement Decree accordingly mandates that fairness of appraisal price be evaluated by an external appraisal institution, and that details be disclosed in the body and as attachment to the Securities Registration Statement (Article 176-7 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA). 6. Approval Schedule Following the public comment period, the proposed amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA and the Regulation on Issuance and Disclosure will undergo regulatory review, including resolutions by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) and the FSC, review by the Ministry of Government Legislation, and resolutions by the Vice Ministers’ Meeting and the Cabinet Meeting, and are scheduled to take effect on December 9, 2026, aligned with the enforcement date of the amended FSCMA (the approval of the amendment to the Regulation on Issuance and Disclosure will only proceed up to the FSC resolution). For listed companies that are to pass board resolution regarding an M&A Transaction after the amended FSCMA takes effect, taking preparatory measures will be critical: Substantive Preparation ? As the existing formulaic calculations for transaction value and appraisal prices have been abandoned, it will be crucial to establish objective valuations without relying on such formulas, preparing thoroughly for potential challenges, and conducting a detailed review of the valuation methods, key assumptions, and limitations of the appraisals. Procedural Preparation ? Implementing measures to ensure fairness, such as through the establishment of special committees, has become highly important. Furthermore, because M&A Transactions between affiliates require additional disclosure (of investments, debt guarantees, concurrent holding of executive offices, and details of shareholding changes between specially related parties and the counterparty corporation), companies must faithfully examine potential conflicts of interest between transacting parties and prepare for risks of public controversy. [Korean Version]
2026.09.28

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
Designation and Reporting of the Chief Privacy Officer under the Amended Personal Information Protection Act The amended Personal Information Protection Act, which took effect on September 11, 2026 (“Amended PIPA”), added a new provision requiring a data controller, when it designates, changes, or removes its Chief Privacy Officer (“CPO”), to obtain a board resolution and to report the same to the Personal Information Protection Commission (“PIPC”) (Article 31 of the Amended PIPA). This newsletter summarizes the key aspects of that obligation, including the guidance set out in the Practical Manual on the Designation and Reporting of the Chief Privacy Officer (“Guide”), published by the PIPC. 1. Data Controllers Subject to the Obligation Under the Amended PIPA, the data controllers that must designate, change, or remove a CPO by board resolution and report the same to the PIPC are the following: Data controllers with annual revenue exceeding KRW 180 billion that (i) process the sensitive information or unique identification information of at least 50,000 data subjects or (ii) process the personal information of at least 1 million data subjects; Schools under Article 2 of the Higher Education Act with 20,000 or more enrolled students as of the end of the preceding year; Tertiary general hospitals under Article 3-4 of the Medical Services Act; or Public system operating institutions. For reference, the Guide states that the number of data subjects under these thresholds is not limited to customers, but also includes officers and employees, and that, if a single company operates multiple services, the number of data subjects processed in connection with each service is aggregated to determine whether a threshold is met. 2. Details of the Obligation A data controller within the scope described above must obtain a board resolution when it designates, changes, or removes a CPO. The Guide explains that there is no particular restriction on the method or timing of the board resolution and that a corporation whose governance structure does not includes a board of directors needs not obtain a board resolution, but in that case, it must submit a supporting document evidencing the absence of a board. Matters concerning the designation, change, or removal of a CPO must be reported to the PIPC within six months from the date on which the relevant cause arises. The report is filed online through the website operated by the PIPC, and the reporting data controller should note that documents evidencing the board resolution and documents proving the CPO's satisfaction of the qualification requirements must be submitted together with the report. A data controller that already designated a CPO before the Amended PIPA took effect does not need to obtain a board resolution for that past designation, but must still file the report with the PIPC within six months from the effective date, September 11, 2026. The Guide further explains that when there is a temporal gap between a CPO's resignation and the designation of a successor, the six-month reporting period is calculated separately from the date on which each cause arose. If a successor CPO can be designated within six months of the resignation, the removal and the designation can be reported simultaneously. 3. Administrative Fines and Grace Period A violation of the resolution and reporting obligations may be subject to an administrative fine of up to KRW 30 million. The PIPC stated, however, that in order to ease the burden on the affected entities arising from the introduction of this new system and to promote its stable implementation, it will operate a grace period until December 31, 2027, during which it will not impose administrative fines for violations such as failure to designate a CPO, failure to meet the CPO qualification requirements, violation of the board resolution obligation, and delay in reporting a designation, change, or removal. 4. Implications and Next Steps Data controllers subject to this obligation should review their internal procedures and rules so that the obligations arising from the designation, change, and removal of a CPO can be performed in a timely manner. [Korean Version]
2026.09.22

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
Outlook for Competition Law Investigations Following the Prosecution Reform in Korea Effective October 2, 2026, the Prosecutors’ Office will be abolished and replaced by two new agencies: the Public Prosecution Office and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (the “SCIA”). Under the new structure, violations of the laws within the jurisdiction of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) ? including Korea’s primary competition and fair trade law, the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act ? will become principal subjects of investigation by the SCIA. Recent legislative amendments have also changed the recipient of the KFTC’s criminal referrals for all cases under its jurisdiction, from the Prosecutor General to the Head of the SCIA. The affected laws include the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Subcontracting Act, the Large Retail Business Act, the Franchise Business Act, the Agency Act, and the Display Advertising Act. These institutional changes could affect criminal investigation and prosecution of competition and fair trade violations in profound ways. The Public Prosecution Office may not conduct direct investigations but, where necessary, could request supplementary investigation from the SCIA; The decision on whether to prosecute competition law violations will rest with the Public Prosecution Office; Although not yet confirmed, the authority responsible for criminal leniency may be split between the SCIA and the Public Prosecution Office; Discussions are underway to abolish or relax the KFTC’s exclusive right to file criminal referrals and to expand the range of parties entitled to file criminal referrals to include heads of local governments, among others, which may in turn bring changes to the investigating authorities. Because these changes are wide-ranging, interconnected, and in some respects still unsettled, they warrant continued attention and analysis. The principal changes confirmed to date are set out below. [Key Changes to the Investigation and Complaint System for Antitrust Cases] Category Before After Investigating authority for KFTC criminal referrals Prosecutors’ Office (e.g., Fair Trade Investigation Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office) Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (e.g., Antitrust Investigation Bureau of the Seoul SCIA) Recipient of the KFTC’s criminal referral Prosecutor General Head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Party entitled to request a criminal referral Prosecutor General alone Prosecutor General (Head of the Public Prosecution Office) or Head of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Direct and supplementary investigation by the Public Prosecution Office (prosecutors) Direct and supplementary investigation permitted Neither direct nor supplementary investigation permitted; only a request for supplementary investigation to the SCIA is available In connection with the abolition or relaxation of the KFTC’s exclusive right to make a criminal referral on fair trade cases, discussions are also underway regarding a scheme that would allow a certain number of citizens, central administrative agencies, and metropolitan local governments to file criminal referrals directly with the investigating authorities without going through the KFTC. The relevant institutional framework has not yet been finalized, and several details will need to be monitored, such as the scope of parties entitled to file criminal referrals and which authority will handle them. It also remains unconfirmed how the criminal leniency (voluntary reporting and reduction) system will operate under the new Public Prosecution Office and SCIA structure. Because criminal leniency bears directly on the decision whether to prosecute, there are competing views: one that the Public Prosecution Office should take the lead, and another that the SCIA should take the lead as it serves as the point of intake for investigative leads. Given the institutional importance of criminal leniency, we will continue to monitor the reform process and whether specific procedures are established, and will provide updates as appropriate. Once the SCIA is established, major investigations into antitrust and competition cases, such as collusion, are likely to be conducted primarily through the Antitrust Investigation Bureau (comprising four divisions) of the Seoul SCIA. In parallel, the KFTC has newly established a Key Investigation Planning Group to handle “significant” cases, which is scheduled to become fully operational in the fourth quarter of 2026. Comprehensive review of, and preparation for, competition law investigations and inquiries will be critical as companies navigate the new enforcement system. [Korean Version]
2026.09.21

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
KFTC Publishes Proposed Amendment to Merger Notification Preparation Guidelines to Cover Acqui-hire Transactions 1. Key Takeaways The Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) announced for public comment from September 9 to September 30, 2026 a proposed amendment to the Merger Notification Preparation Guidelines (the “Proposed Amendment”) that would add “organized personnel” to the definition of “business” if such organized personnel and the technology and knowledge possessed by such personnel combine to perform core functions of business activities. The Proposed Amendment is intended to bring large-scale talent recruitment by global Big Tech companies targeting AI startups (so-called “acqui-hire” transactions) within the scope of merger filing obligations and is expected to affect all domestic and foreign companies pursuing acqui-hire transactions in or outside Korea. The KFTC will collect comments during the public comment period and plans to finalize the Proposed Amendment through a vote by the full Commission. The Proposed Amendment will take effect immediately upon publication in the Official Gazette and will apply to the transactions that trigger the notification obligation after the effective date. 2. Background Article 9, Paragraph (1), Item 4 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law (the “FTL”) and the Merger Notification Preparation Guidelines designate the acquisition of all or a significant part of another company’s business as one of the reportable types of transaction. The current provisions are based on the transfer of “business”, referring to property rights (both assets and liabilities) that act as an organized and organic whole for the business purpose of a company, based on the Commercial Code concepts and court precedents. Therefore, there is no explicit provision addressing the transaction structures that achieve the same effect as a business transfer through the transfer of personnel only, and recently, there have been concerns that this new form of transaction was falling into a regulatory blind spot with respect to merger reviews. The number of acqui-hire transactions in which global Big Tech companies strategically recruit key personnel from AI startups has been increasing worldwide, and competition authorities in various countries have been actively responding to this development. The KFTC’s Proposed Amendment can be viewed as being in line with this global trend. 3. Key Details of Proposed Amendment The key provisions of the Proposed Amendment are as follows. (1) Expanded Definition of “Business” The current Merger Notification Preparation Guidelines define “business” as an organized and organic collection of property rights that function for the company’s business purpose, including goodwill, patent rights, trademark rights, and other intangible property rights. Under the Proposed Amendment, if organized personnel and the technology and knowledge possessed by such personnel combine to perform core functions of business activities, such personnel will be included within the scope of “business.” (2) Revised “Significant Part” Standard Under the current Merger Notification Preparation Guidelines, the transferred business constitutes a “significant part” of a business if (i) the transferred portion constitutes an independent business unit or causes a significant decrease in the transferor’s revenue and (ii) the transfer price is at least 10% of the transferor’s total assets or KRW 10 billion. The Proposed Amendment will add to the existing thresholds a new threshold under which a transfer of a “significant part” of a business will be recognized if key personnel are transferred to the acquiring company and, as a result, the acquiring company can conduct the same business activities as the transferor. (3) Revised Transfer Price Calculation and Gun-Jumping Criteria The Proposed Amendment provides that in the case of transfer of organized personnel, the transfer price will include monetary payments and other economic benefits, regardless of its characterization. This includes consideration for the waiver of rights related to the transferred personnel (e.g., non-compete release payments) and royalties for intellectual property necessary for the business activities. As a result, various forms of economic compensation commonly used in acqui-hire transactions can be reflected in the calculation of the transfer price. With respect to gun-jumping, the current Merger Notification Preparation Guidelines provide that the closing of a transaction takes place at the time of completion of payment, delivery of movable property, and registration of real estate and trademarks. The Proposed Amendment will add “the transferor’s cessation of the business that it was conducting” as the definition of closing in acqui-hire transactions. 4. Implications and Next Steps The Proposed Amendment is expected to affect all businesses pursuing acqui-hires in and outside Korea. First, companies should be aware that in addition to business transfers and asset transfers, transactions that de facto achieve the same effect as a business transfer through various set of agreements, such as personnel transfer agreements, cooperation agreements, and non-compete release agreements, can now be subject to the KFTC’s merger review. For example, if a Big Tech company recruits key personnel from an AI startup, it may constitute transfer of all or a significant part of a business, and thus, be subject to the merger filing obligation under the FTL. In particular, for technology-focused companies, organized personnel may represent a significant portion of its enterprise value, and it is, therefore, necessary to examine whether personnel transfer could constitute a reportable type of transaction. Furthermore, companies contemplating acqui-hire type transactions should carefully review the possibility of having to file a merger notification with the KFTC from the deal structuring stage and reflect the filing and clearance process into the broader transaction timeline. Despite the Proposed Amendment, there is not yet more specific guidelines or interpretations on how the related concepts and various types of transactions may affect the application of the Proposed Amendment. Therefore, companies should continue to monitor the KFTC’s future interpretation and potential amendment to the Merger Review Guidelines in relation to acqui-hire transactions. [Korean Version]
2026.09.11

Newsletters VIEW MORE

김·장 홍보

Ranked Among the World’s Top 100 Law Firms for the 13th Year

For the 13th consecutive year, Kim & Chang was ranked among the world’s top 100 law firms in “The Global 200” rankings published by The American Lawyer and Law.com International. Once again, our firm was the only Korean law firm to be featured among the top 100.
VIEW MORE
Ranked 25th Among the Asia Top 50 Law Firms

This year, Kim & Chang was ranked 25th in The Asia 50 and was the only Korean law firm to be featured among the top 50.
VIEW MORE
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

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