INSIGHTS

Newsletters
Supreme Court En Banc Decision Rejects Principal Company’s Duty to Bargain Collectively in Cases Governed by the Former Trade Union Act On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in an en banc decision that for cases governed by the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the Act before its amendment on September 9, 2025; hereinafter referred to as the “Former Trade Union Act”), “the scope of an employer bearing the duty to bargain collectively must be determined based on whether an explicit or implied contractual employment relationship exists.” With the recent amendment to the Former Trade Union Act, a new provision was added to the latter part of Article 2, Subparagraph 2 (hereinafter the “Amended Trade Union Act” or “Yellow Envelope Act”), which expands employer status to those who, even if they are not a direct party to an employment contract, are in a position to substantially and specifically control or determine the working conditions of workers. However, the Supreme Court maintained its existing precedent (the former legal doctrine) that for cases preceding the enforcement of the Amended Trade Union Act, a principal company’s status as an employer must be judged strictly on whether it is a party to an explicit or implied contractual employment relationship aiming to receive labor under its direction and supervision and to pay wages in return. Based on this doctrine, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. 1. Key Takeaways of the Supreme Court En Banc Decision In cases where Article 2 of the Former Trade Union Act applies, the Supreme Court ruled that the former legal doctrine — which narrowly defines an “employer” who bears the duty to bargain collectively — remains reasonable and should be retained for the following reasons: (1) Based on the text of Article 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Former Trade Union Act, it is difficult to interpret the concept of an “employer” to include those who, despite not being parties to an employment contract, are in a position to substantially and specifically control or determine the workers’ working conditions. (2) The purpose of the recent amendment to the Act is to expand the definition of an employer more precisely since, in the case of unfair labor practices involving control or interference, an entity that is in a position to substantially and specifically control or determine the working conditions of the workers—even without having directly entered into an employment contract with them—can nonetheless infringe upon their three basic labor rights through factual acts of control or interference. (3) Article 90 of the Former and Amended Trade Union Act imposes criminal penalties (imprisonment for up to 2 years or a criminal fine of up to KRW 20 million) on those who commit unfair labor practices. Since “being an employer who bears the duty to bargain collectively” is a core element of the criminal offense for refusing collective bargaining, Article 2 of the Former Trade Union Act must be strictly interpreted in accordance with the principle of legality. (4) Looking at the substance and background of the Amended Trade Union Act, it is clear that the legislature made a deliberate choice to expand the concept of an “employer” by adding the latter part of Article 2, Subparagraph 2, on the premise of respecting the Supreme Court’s existing legal doctrine. (5) The essence of adjudication lies in providing relief for rights in concrete cases; therefore, it is not permissible to declare abstract legal principles unrelated to a specific dispute. In a collective bargaining dispute arising around 2016 to which the Former Trade Union Act applies, it is inappropriate to depart from established precedent and apply a legal standard substantially similar to that of the Amended Trade Union Act. 2. Strategic Implications and Recommendations This en banc decision is significant since it reaffirms that, under the Former Trade Union Act, the existing doctrine remains valid: an employer duty-bound to bargain collectively is strictly defined as one who has an explicit or implied employment contract to direct, supervise, receive labor from, and pay wages to a worker. Notably, the Supreme Court stated that in future cases where the Amended Trade Union Act applies, the concept of an employer must be interpreted in line with the legislative purpose of “effectively guaranteeing the three basic labor rights.” Consequently, how lower courts define the scope of a principal company’s substantial and specific control in future disputes will drastically reshape the landscape of labor-management relations. Therefore, under the regime of the Amended Trade Union Act, companies must proactively manage legal risks and prepare for new forms of collective bargaining demands. This includes reviewing and restructuring principal-subcontractor outsourcing structures and operational methods. Additionally, as the criteria for “substantial control” raised in the minority opinion of four Supreme Court Justices is highly likely to become a key point of contention in future disputes, a thorough prior analysis of existing internal structures and proactive preparation are strongly advised. [Koeran Version]
2026.05.28

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
Proposed Amendment to the FSCMA Introducing “Fair Value” for Mergers of Listed Companies Passes the National Policy Committee On May 14, 2026, the National Policy Committee of the National Assembly passed a proposed amendment to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (the “FSCMA”), which requires the merger value of listed companies to be determined based on a “fair value” (the “Proposed Amendment”). This legislative development is seen as part of the government’s ongoing efforts to improve corporate governance policies.[1] Previously, through amendments of Article 165-4 of the FSCMA and Article 176-5 of the related Enforcement Decree, the valuation standard for mergers involving unaffiliated listed companies was changed from the market share price to a fair value evaluation standard (Link). The Proposed Amendment expands this requirement to mergers between listed companies and their affiliates. This change aims to enhance fairness in merger ratio regulations, thereby mitigating conflicts of interest between majority shareholders and minority shareholders, as well as addressing controversies over the dilution of corporate value. Consequently, it is drawing significant attention from both companies exploring or preparing for corporate restructuring transactions and capital market investors. If the Proposed Amendment passes the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, is approved by the plenary session of the National Assembly, and is promulgated by the government in its current form, it will take effect three months after the date of promulgation. It will apply to transactions where the board of directors resolves on a merger or similar transaction after the enforcement date. Key details of the Proposed Amendment are as follows: 1. Change to the standard for calculating the merger value (Article 165-4(1)) Under the current FSCMA and its subordinate statutes, when a listed company enters into a merger, an acquisition or transfer of a significant business or asset, a comprehensive share exchange or transfer, or a spin-off or split and merger (each, a “Subject M&A Transaction”) with an affiliate, it must calculate the transaction value based on a market price formula, while valuation standards apply when a transaction is with an unaffiliated company (Article 165-4(1) of the FSCMA, Article 176-5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA). However, the Proposed Amendment repeals the market price formula applied to Subject M&A Transaction between affiliates, requiring instead that the transaction value be determined as a “fair value calculated by comprehensively taking into account the share price, asset value, earnings value, etc.” 2. Statutory codification of the duty to prepare and disclose a written opinion of the board of directors (newly established Article 165-4(2)) Under the current Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA and the Regulations on Issuance and Disclosure of Securities (the "Securities Disclosure Regulations"), if a listed company intends to pursue a Subject M&A Transaction with another company, it must prepare a written opinion of the board of directors prior to the resolution of the board of directors on the merger, all directors must affix their names and seals or signatures thereon (Articles 176-5(6) and 176-6(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA), and the written opinion must be disclosed as an attachment to the registration statement (Articles 2-9(2)14 and 2-10(6) of the Securities Disclosure Regulations). The Proposed Amendment explicitly codifies into statutory law the obligations to prepare and disclose the aforementioned written opinion, stipulating that non-compliance will subject the company to enforcement actions by the Financial Services Commission. 3. Mandatory disclosure of external valuation results (Article 165-4(3)) The current FSCMA and the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA mandate that companies “must undergo” an evaluation by an external appraiser regarding matters such as the value of a Subject M&A Transaction (Article 165-4(2) of the FSCMA, Articles 176-5(8) and 176-6(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA). Furthermore, the Securities Disclosure Regulations require an external appraiser's appraisal opinion to be attached to the registration statement for disclosure (Articles 2-9(2)11 and 2-10(6) of the Securities Disclosure Regulations). The Proposed Amendment also explicitly codifies into statutory law this disclosure obligation for appraisal opinion, providing that violations will be subject to enforcement actions by the Financial Services Commission. 4. Selection of external appraisers by the auditor/audit committee in mergers with affiliates (newly established Article 165-4(4)) Under the current Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA, when a listed company pursues a Subject M&A Transaction with an affiliate (an "Affiliate M&A Transaction"), it must obtain the consent (resolution) of the statutory auditor or audit committee, as applicable, for the selection of an external appraiser (Articles 176-5(10) and 176-6(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA). The Proposed Amendment mandates that in cases of Affiliate M&A Transactions, the statutory auditor or audit committee, as applicable, must itself select the external appraiser, thereby strengthening the authority of the statutory auditor/audit committee. 5. Disclosure of interests involving specially-related parties (newly established Article 165-4(6)) According to the Proposed Amendment, a listed company that conducts an Affiliate M&A Transaction must disclose any conflicts of interest or specific relationships between its specially-related parties (as defined under Article 9(1) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act) and the counterparty to the Affiliate M&A Transaction (newly established Article 165-18 Subparagraph 4-3). 6. Amendment to the standard for calculating the purchase price for appraisal rights (proviso of Article 165-5(3)) Article 165-5(3) of the current FSCMA and Article 176-7(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the FSCMA stipulate that if the company and shareholders fail to reach an agreement when a shareholder exercises appraisal rights, the purchase price is calculated based on the “market share price.” However, this has sparked criticism regarding inconsistency with the existing amendment which mandates the calculation of the merger value be based on valuation standards for mergers between non-affiliated companies of a listed company. Reflecting these discussions, the Proposed Amendment dictates that even in the case of Subject M&A Transactions, the board of directors must calculate the base purchase price for dissenting shareholders’ appraisal rights by “comprehensively taking into account the share price, asset value, earnings value, etc.” If no agreement is reached between the company and the shareholders, this base price shall apply, and the mechanism allowing shareholders to petition the court to determine the purchase price if they still object remains unchanged. The Proposed Amendment goes beyond merely altering the method for calculating merger value. Combined with the amended Article 382-3 of the Korean Commercial Code, which took effect on July 22, 2025 and expanded the scope of a director's duty of loyalty to include "the company and its shareholders" while introducing duties to protect the interests of all shareholders and treat them fairly, the Proposed Amendment is expected to substantially broaden the scope of conduct standards imposed on directors during corporate restructuring transactions such as mergers. Previously, as long as the merger value of a listed company was calculated according to the formula set out in the Enforcement Decree, the room for disputes over its legality was relatively limited. However, following the implementation of the Proposed Amendment, legal disputes are expected to rise regarding whether the board of directors calculated “fair value” that comprehensively considered share price, asset value, and earnings value in restructuring transactions, and whether they exerted their best efforts to prevent shareholder losses. In particular, whether a price is “fair” could become a direct subject of review not only in lawsuits on the merits challenging the validity of shareholder resolutions approving the merger, but also at the preliminary injunction stage. Accordingly, proving that sufficient procedural steps were taken to ensure the fairness of the transaction value during future corporate restructurings will become crucial. In this regard, companies can refer to the "Guidelines on the Standards of Directors’ Conduct in the Context of Corporate Restructuring" published by the Ministry of Justice on February 25, 2026 (Link). As these Guidelines propose (i) the establishment and operation of a special committee, (ii) review by independent external experts, and (iii) the provision of comprehensive information to shareholders as measures to enhance fairness, listed companies reviewing or considering restructuring transactions should stay mindful of these legal principles.[2] Meanwhile, aside from the matters included in the Proposed Amendment, discussions continue regarding the necessity of amending the FSCMA to introduce a mandatory tender offer rule that includes the sharing of management premiums in M&A transactions, as we previously explained (Link). Furthermore, other significant developments concerning corporate governance reform remain underway, such as the approval of amendments to Korea Exchange regulations for delisting reform measures and preparatory work regarding the ban on double listings following the Financial Services Commission's policy announcement. Given these active shifts, monitoring the overall changes in the capital market environment will be of critical importance. [1] In connection with this, as we previously noted, the government has announced its policy directions through the “Capital Market Stabilization and Normalization Meeting” presided over by President Jae-Myung Lee on March 18, 2026, and the Financial Service Commission’s announcement on “Plans to Improve the Capital Market’s Structure for Stabilization” on March 19, 2026 (Link). These directions include: (i) prohibition on double listings, (ii) prevention of damage to corporate value, such as by leaving low stock prices unaddressed, and (iii) strengthened monitoring of institutional investors by improving the Stewardship Code. In particular, regarding the policy to prevent damage to corporate value, such as neglecting to address low stock prices, the government stated it would push for fair value calculation and mandatory external evaluations during M&A transactions, and would support the swift enactment of a related amendment to the FSCMA, which has already been proposed. [2] For reference, some of the proposed amendments to the FSCMA included the introduction of approval of uninterested shareholders or the affirmative vote of a majority of minority shareholders, but this was not included in the Proposed Amendment as it was removed during the National Policy Committee's review process. [Korean Version]
2026.05.22

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
KFTC’s Announcement of Proposed Amendment to the Whistleblower Reward Program On May 21, 2026, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) announced the draft amendment to the Regulations on Whistleblower Reward Payments for Violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law (“Whistleblower Reward Program”) for public comment from May 21, 2026 to June 10, 2026. The amendment aims to encourage insider reporting of antitrust and competition law violations by eliminating the current reward caps and simplifying the calculation formula to a flat 10% of the total administrative fine. This shift carries significant compliance implications for companies operating in Korea. 1. Key points of the proposed amendment to the Whistleblower Reward Program (1) Complete removal of reward payment caps The current Whistleblower Reward Program sets a cap on reward payments for each type of violation (e.g., KRW 3 billion for cartels, KRW 2 billion for unfair support, and KRW 500 million each for violations of the Fairness in Subcontracting Transactions Act, the Fairness in Distribution Transaction Act, and the Fairness in Franchising Transaction Act). The draft amendment proposes to remove these caps entirely so that the potential reward payable in cases involving very large administrative fines could increase substantially. (2) Simplified and increased reward calculation rate (Flat 10% of the administrative fine) The proposed amendment simplifies the payout structure by replacing a complex, bracketed regressive system with a flat percentage model. Currently, rewards are calculated by applying the lower percentage rates to successively higher fine brackets. This baseline amount is then multiplied by an evidentiary reward rate, which depends on the evidentiary value of the whistleblower’s report (Highest: 100%, High: 80%, Medium: 50%, Low: 30%). For example, under the old regressive system, a report with the “Highest” evidentiary value resulting in a KRW 100 billion fine would yield a KRW 2.85 billion reward, calculated across declining brackets (10% of the first KRW 5 billion, 5% of the next KRW 15 billion, and 2% of the amount above KRW 20 billion). The proposed amendment simplifies this system by establishing the baseline payout as a flat 10% of the total administrative fine, which is then adjusted only by the whistleblower’s evidentiary rate. Consequently, under the new system, the same KRW 100 billion fine with the “Highest” evidentiary level would result in a reward of KRW 10 billion. (3) Expanded scope of acceptable evidence for Improper Support and Private Benefit Appropriation Currently, the Whistleblower Reward Program only accepted information regarding “transaction records” and “transaction terms” as valid evidence for rewards. The KFTC now proposes to include information demonstrating an “intent to provide support”. This change reflects the regulatory reality where for improper support and private benefit appropriation cases, an outsider rarely has the means to uncover or prove subjective corporate intent. (4) Adjustment of the timing of reward payments Under the current rule, rewards are paid within three months after the KFTC’s decision, which results in payouts being distributed before the underlying legal disputes and litigation are fully resolved. To address this, the proposal introduces a two-stage payment system: (i) a basic reward (calculated by multiplying the minimum payout amount for each type of violation by the evidentiary rewards rate) will be paid once the respondent company initially pays the administrative fine and (ii) any remaining reward will be paid after the appeal proceedings are concluded and the administrative fine is finally confirmed and paid. 2. Implications (1) Increased incentives for insider reporting In the United States, the DOJ Antitrust Division introduced the Whistleblower Rewards Program jointly with the USPS in July 2025, offering payouts of up to 30% of criminal fines for reporting cartel conduct, with the first reward of USD 1 million being paid out in January 2026. The proposed Korean amendment is similar in purpose and expected outcome to the U.S. DOJ program: By implementing a more lucrative structure, the amendment is expected to encourage more active insider reporting in Korea, triggering new regulatory investigations. (2) Greater incentive to report in the context of the KFTC’s tougher enforcement stance The KFTC has recently intensified its enforcement actions against cartels. In 2026, the KFTC imposed administrative fines totaling several hundred billion Korean Won in cartel cases involving food and daily consumer products, while conducting intensive on-site investigations in energy and petrochemical sectors. Under the newly effective amendment to the “Detailed Standards for the Imposition of Administrative Fines” (April 30, 2026), the KFTC significantly raised the base rates for fines and increased penalty weightings for repeat offenders. Coupled with this increase in administrative fines, the proposed amendment is expected to expand the whistleblower incentive even further. (3) Need for corporate risk assessment and stronger compliance When the proposed amendment takes effect, the number of investigations triggered by whistleblower submissions is expected to rise. Companies that have previously faced allegations of potential violations or flagged issues during internal compliance reviews should use this amendment as an opportunity to strengthen internal antitrust training, re examine compliance procedures both within the company and in its external interactions, tighten controls over information exchange and field-level contacts, and enhance efforts to ensure compliance with antitrust and competition law. 3. Next steps After gathering opinions during the public comment period, the KFTC plans to complete the required procedures and finalize and implement the amendment within the first half of 2026. [Korean Version]
2026.05.22

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
KFTC Announces Commencement of Market Survey of the AI Service Market The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) announced on May 21, 2026 that it will conduct an “Artificial Intelligence (AI) Service Market Survey” to examine and analyze transaction practices and competitive conditions among major domestic and foreign business operators participating in the domestic AI service market. This survey is the KFTC’s third one related to the AI sector, following a survey on the “overall generative AI market” in 2024 and a survey on the “data sector” within AI infrastructure in 2025. We provide below a summary of the background, key details, and implications of this survey. This survey is expected to serve as a milestone for the KFTC’s enforcement and future policy direction regarding AI services, a part of the AI sector most closely connected to consumers. 1. Background and Purpose of the AI Service Market Survey With the rapid advancement of AI technology, the incorporation of AI into everyday products and services—such as smartphones, automobiles, web browsers, and social media—is becoming commonplace. Integrating AI can promote innovation and competition, and enhance consumer welfare. On the other hand, concerns continue to be raised about the potential restrictions on competition, such as increased market concentration, and consumer harm, such as false or exaggerated advertising using AI. Major competition authorities worldwide, including the UK CMA, France’s FCA, and Australia’s ACCC, are increasingly focusing research and analysis on the AI services segment within the overall AI value chain. Against this backdrop, the KFTC announced its plans to conduct this survey to clearly understand the structure and competitive conditions of the domestic AI service market — which includes large domestic and foreign businesses and various start-ups — and to proactively analyze potential competition and consumer issues. 2. Key Details of the Survey and Phased Plan The KFTC solicited opinion from the industry and academia before launching the survey and plans to conduct the survey in two phases as follows. (1) Phase 1: Written survey targeting companies Survey targets: businesses participating in the domestic AI service market (46 companies in total) ? Major domestic and foreign AI service developers (29 companies) ? Major domestic and foreign providers of AI-enabled products (17 companies) Key survey items: ? Business status of AI service operations and transaction practices related to AI-enabled services ? Competitive situation in the AI service market ? Method of provision of AI services to consumers, etc. ? Experiences of restriction of competition or unfair trade practices, etc. (2) Phase 2: Written survey targeting consumers (scheduled to begin in July 2026) Survey targets: general consumers who use AI services Key survey items: ? Consumers’ AI service usage behavior ? Consumers’ awareness and perceptions regarding AI-enabled products, etc. 3. Future Policy Tasks and Implications The KFTC plans to analyze the survey results and, through continued engagement with participants in the Ai service market and academic experts, publish a policy report titled “AI Downstream Markets and Competition” within the year. Similar to the KFTC’s 2024 “Generative AI and Competition” report and the 2025 “Data and Competition” report, this survey and the resulting policy report are expected to focus on analyzing specific issues and presenting policy directions that reflect the particular characteristics of the AI service market. Considering the KFTC’s existing policy direction and trends among overseas competition authorities, the following issues are likely to receive particular attention in this survey: Fairness in AI integration and distribution processes: Whether the process of embedding AI into various consumer facing products involves restrictions on competition, such as bundling, exclusive dealings, or unfair refusals to deal (access restrictions). Self preferencing by agentic AI and distortion of consumer choice: Whether “agentic AI”, which key foreign competition authorities are also highly focused on, could distort consumers’ ability to make rational choices through self-preferencing or non-transparent recommendation algorithm in the course of determining and consuming information and services on behalf of users. Harm to consumer interests and improper data collection: Given the consumer facing nature of this market, whether there is a potential for infringement of consumer interests, such as unfair data collection using dark patterns, or false or exaggerated advertising using AI services. As the AI sector experiences dynamic technological advancements, the direction and pace of regulation continue to evolve. Therefore, companies providing related or adjacent services are advised to continuously monitor the progress of this survey and respond appropriately. Furthermore, it will be important for companies to inspect their own service delivery methods and transaction status in light of the findings of this survey, and to prepare for potential risks by improving their compliance systems. [Korean Version]
2026.05.21

Newsletters VIEW MORE
Newsletters
Personal Information Protection Act Amendment Bill Approved by the National Assembly's National Policy Committee On May 14, 2026, the National Assembly's National Policy Committee approved a bill (“Amendment Bill”) to amend the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”). The Amendment Bill is a bill that consolidates the bills introduced by Representative Min Byung-Deok on January 31, 2025 and Representative Koh Dong-Jin on March 13, 2025. It introduces a special provision permitting the use of personal information that had already been lawfully collected for the development of AI, subject to approval by the Personal Information Protection Commission (“PIPC”), if such use is deemed necessary for AI development or performance improvement. The key features of the Amendment Bill are as follows: 1. Use of Personal Information Beyond the Original Purpose for AI Development A data controller may use personal information for AI development, which had already been lawfully collected for another purpose, if all of the following requirements are satisfied (Article 28-12(1) of the Amendment Bill). Whether these requirements are met is subject to the review and approval by the PIPC, which may impose conditions as necessary to ensure the protection of data subjects' rights and secure processing of personal information (Article 28-12(2) of the Amendment Bill): If, in light of the nature of the personal information being processed (e.g., video, audio, images, symbols, or text) and its relevance to AI development, it is difficult to develop AI if the personal information is processed in anonymized or pseudonymized form; If the personal information is processed in an environment with technical, administrative, and physical safeguards in place for secure processing, or if additional safeguards appropriate to specific circumstances (such as a cloud environment) are implemented in accordance with the standards to be further detailed in the Enforcement Decree of the PIPA; and If the purpose of AI development includes one of the following, and there is a minimal risk of unfairly infringing upon the interests of the data subject or a third party: ? Promotion of public interest; or ? Protection of the interests of the data subject or a third party, or promotion of social interests. "AI development" as used above includes performance improvement. If personal information is used in accordance with the provisions to be introduced by the Amendment Bill, certain regulations in the PIPA will not apply, including restrictions on the use and transfer beyond the original purpose, notification of the source of collection, restrictions on the processing of sensitive information, unique identification information, and resident registration numbers, restrictions on the installation and operation of visual data processing devices, and regulations on overseas delegation of personal information processing (Article 28-15 of the Amendment Bill). However, a data controller must disclose, in its privacy policy, the purpose of use and items of personal information being used (Article 28-12(5) of the Amendment Bill). 2. Risk Assessment and Ex Post Management and Supervision If the criteria to be further detailed in the Enforcement Decree of the PIPA are met, taking into account factors such as whether sensitive information or unique identification information is processed and the impact on the rights and interests of data subjects, the PIPC must, prior to its review and approval, require the data controller to conduct a risk assessment and submit the results (Article 28-12(3) of the Amendment Bill). In addition, a summary of the risk assessment results must be disclosed together with the outcome of the PIPC's review and approval (Article 28-12(6) of the Amendment Bill). Further, the PIPC must periodically oversee and monitor whether the matters that it approved are properly implemented (Article 28-13(1) of the Amendment Bill) and may request the submission of relevant materials from the data controller to the extent necessary for such oversight and supervision (Article 28-13(2) of the Amendment Bill). If the Amendment Bill is ultimately passed by the plenary session of the National Assembly, the amended PIPA is expected to take effect six months after promulgation by the President. If enacted, the Amendment Bill is expected to allow personal information that has been previously collected by a data controller for another purpose to be used for AI development and improvement, even without anonymization or pseudonymization. However, in order to actually use the data containing personal information, certain requirements and procedures must still be satisfied. Accordingly, it will be important to closely monitor whether the Amendment Bill is ultimately passed by the plenary session of the National Assembly and subsequent developments, including amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the PIPA. [Korean Version]
2026.05.15

Newsletters VIEW MORE

김·장 홍보

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
Recognized as Top ESG Law Firm

Kim & Chang was recognized as a top ESG law firm in the “Asia’s Top ESG Law Firms 2026” special feature published in the May 2026 issue of Asian Legal Business (“ALB”).
VIEW MORE
Leading Law Firm in All 11 Practice Areas

In the 2026 edition of Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, Kim & Chang was once again recognized as a leading law firm across all 11 practice areas surveyed in Korea. Additionally, this year, 66 of our attorneys were recognized in their respective practice areas.
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