INSIGHTS

ニュースレター
Kim & Chang Legal Newsletter (2025 Issue 3) This is a quaterly update of legal developments in Korea from Kim & Chang. This issue includes: “Yellow Envelope Act” Passes National Assembly Plenary Session Key Antitrust and Competition Policy Directions of New Administration Introduction of Directors’ Duty to Protect Shareholders’ Interests and Other Changes to Regulatory Framework on Corporate Governance KFTC Announces Proposed Amendment to Review Guidelines on Deceptive Labeling and Advertising Promulgation of September 9, 2025 Amendment to Korean Commercial Code and Additional Legal Updates KCS Introduces System of “Batch Submission of Data on Customs Value Declarations” Regulatory Update: Key Takeaways from Enforcement of Amended K-REACH and CSCA Amendment to Subordinate Statutes to Act on Resource Circulation of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles Policy Trends on Stablecoins Prior Consultation Requirements for Requests by Foreign Governments or Institutions for Information Concerning National Strategic Technologies Securitization of Life Insurance Policy Death Benefits IP High Court Publishes Its Standard Procedures for Reviewing Civil Cases Updates on Section 232 Investigations on Semiconductors and Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment Introduction of Project REITs and Relaxation of REIT Regulations New Initiatives to Eliminate Unfair Trade Practices in Capital Market: Announcement of Action Plans and Follow-Up Steps 2025 Proposed Tax Law Amendments ? Notable Items To view the newsletter, please click on the link below. Kim & Chang Legal Newsletter (2025 Issue 3) .content_view .view_area a { color: #2c3e50; text-decoration: none; }
2025.10.30

ニュースレターもっと見る
ニュースレター
AI Washing: Enforcement Trends in Korea and Other Jurisdictions (Part 2) When can one be penalized for AI washing? In our previous newsletter, we explored the recently emerging issue of AI washing, including its definition, types, and regulatory trends in and outside of Korea. In this second newsletter, we delve into notable enforcement cases involving AI washing. Below, we also examine how AI washing is being regulated in practice. I. Types of AI Washing and Regulatory Trends II. Enforcement Trends in Korea and Other Jurisdictions III. The Korea Fair Trade Commission’s Market Survey and Guidelines on AI Washing IV. AI Washing Compliance 1. Regulation of AI Washing Outside of Korea In the U.S., AI washing is regulated primarily by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the “US FTC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “US SEC”). The US FTC has emphasized the importance of preventing deceptive marketing practices such as generating fake product or service reviews using AI and advertising the use of AI tools when they are not actually used. As shown below, the US FTC has also expressed concerns about advertisements claiming that AI technology can completely replace human experts, cautioning against deceptive and unsubstantiated marketing claims involving AI. Notable cases reviewed by the US FTC and US SEC to date are as follows: (1) A Company A Company, a legal service provider, advertised that it provides professional legal services through its AI chatbot which can replace human lawyers, but failed to substantiate such claims. In February 2024, the US FTC ordered A Company to pay USD 193,000 in monetary relief, notify its past subscribers about the US FTC’s order, and stop making deceptive claims about the abilities of its AI chatbot. (2) B Company B Company advertised that its AI Content Detector program could determine whether written content was generated using AI technology with 98% accuracy. The US FTC found that B Company failed to substantiate this claim with sufficient evidence. On April 28, 2025, the US FTC issued an order requiring B Company to, among other things, stop engaging in misleading and unsubstantiated advertising unless it has “competent and reliable evidence” to support the claim made, retain evidence to support such efficacy claims, and notify consumers about the order. (3) C Company In 2023, the US FTC filed a case against C Company alleging that in order to attract investments, the company falsely claimed that its AI technology automatically increases sales of online stores. The U.S. federal court reviewing the case found that AI technology was actually not used in the money-making scheme, and most customers failed to recover their investments in C Company, let alone earn profits. In February 2024, the court ordered C Company to cease operations, pay USD 22 million in damages, and permanently banned the operators of the company from offering business opportunities or coaching for e-commerce. (4) D Company and E Company Investment advisory firms D Company and E Company advertised that they use AI technology to predict stock market trends. The US SEC charged both firms, finding that they were actually relying solely on traditional statistical models without any use of AI technology. In March 2024, the SEC settled the charges with D Company and E Company, with each agreeing to pay fines of USD 225,000 and USD 175,000, respectively. Other than the US FTC and US SEC, the U.S. advertising self-regulatory organization, the National Advertising Division (NAD), reviews AI-related advertisements that are submitted on a voluntary basis and recommends corrections. After undergoing such review, major big tech companies have modified or withdrawn some of their AI-based service advertisements. In Europe, the European Commission (EC) and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) have not yet imposed sanctions in connection with AI washing. However, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“UK ASA”), a voluntary regulatory body in the UK, has taken notable action. On October 28, 2023, the UK ASA requested Pixelup to take corrective action regarding its Instagram advertisement, which contained unsubstantiated claims that AI could enhance photo clarity. Following this, on November 22, 2024, the UK ASA also published a report on AI advertising, urging companies to avoid making misleading claims about AI. Based on the above, regulatory authorities outside of Korea are expected to continue actively reviewing and taking enforcement actions against false or deceptive advertisements involving AI. This trend may directly affect domestic companies operating abroad and also impact the enforcement practices of Korean authorities. 2. Regulation of AI Washing in Korea Korean authorities have not imposed sanctions in connection with AI washing to date. However, considering the aforementioned international regulatory trends targeting false and deceptive AI-related claims, the risk of enforcement actions by regulatory authorities in Korea, such as the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”), is expected to increase. The KFTC recently conducted a consumer survey on AI washing in collaboration with the Korea Consumer Agency to assess the current state of AI washing online in Korea and gather data for establishing policy directions. Based on this survey, the KFTC is expected to investigate the AI-related advertising practices of domestic businesses and develop detailed guidelines to regulate AI washing. Thus, although Korea’s standards for regulating AI washing are still in development, given the enforcement activities in other jurisdictions, the KFTC may establish more detailed criteria for accessing AI and amend laws and regulations to effectively address AI washing. In light of evolving regulatory trends and enforcement actions in and outside of Korea, when advertising their use of AI, it will be important for companies to properly disclose to consumers and investors whether they would be able to substantiate their claims with evidence, and eliminate elements with the potential to mislead or harm them. Moreover, monitoring of regulatory developments and enforcement actions in and outside of Korea will be important to ensure compliance and timely responses to potential regulatory actions. We hope you find the above helpful. In the upcoming newsletter, we will review the aforementioned KFTC consumer survey and guidelines in detail. [Korean Version]
2025.10.02

ニュースレターもっと見る
ニュースレター
Announcement to Abolish Breach of Trust Crime, Continued Commercial Code Reform As communicated in previous newsletters, two amendments to the Korean Commercial Code (the “KCC”) have been enacted and implemented in succession. The first amendment introduced directors’ fiduciary duty to protect shareholders’ interests (Link), while the second amendment mandated cumulative voting for large listed companies and expanded the separate election of audit committee members (Link). The third amendment to the KCC, which is currently being promoted by the government, seeks to require the cancellation of treasury shares, among other measures. In response to these amendments, which have expanded the responsibilities of directors and executives and strengthened minority shareholder rights, the government and the Democratic Party of Korea have reviewed reforms to the criminal liability framework for breaches of the duties of care and loyalty by directors and executives in their exercise of business judgment, such as the “special breach of trust” under the KCC and the crime of “breach of trust” under the Korean Criminal Code. Unlike in other advanced jurisdictions where the liability of directors and executives is primarily addressed through civil proceedings, Korea recognizes a broad scope of criminal liability, including for breach of trust, in addition to civil liability. Such an expansive approach has drawn criticism for undermining managerial autonomy and creativity. Accordingly, following a review by the “Task Force to Rationalize Punishment for Economic Crimes and Civil Liabilities,” the government and the Democratic Party of Korea held a meeting on September 30, 2025 and announced the first phase of the Economic Criminal Penalty Rationalization Plan, which primarily focuses on the abolition of the crime of breach of trust. The main details of the plan are as follows: Abolition of the crime of breach of trust under the Korean Criminal Code to protect good-faith business owners The plan sets out the abolishment of the crime of breach of trust under the Korean Criminal Code, which has long been criticized for its vague requirements and broad application, resulting in the restriction of normal corporate management activities. To prevent any enforcement gaps for serious crimes, the government will, in consultation with expert advisors, move quickly to introduce substitute legislation. The substitute legislation is intended to clarify the elements of the crime and narrow the scope of punishable conduct. Easing of criminal punishment and reinforcement of financial liability Imprisonment or criminal fines for economic crimes under the current law will be replaced by punitive damages or administrative fines, shifting the focus from criminal punishment to financial liability. Reclassification of minor violations from “criminal punishment” to “administrative fines” Criminal penalties for minor violations committed by the general public, such as SMEs and small businesses, in the course of economic activity will be replaced by administrative fines. “Administrative measures first, criminal punishment thereafter” approach When legislative objectives can be achieved through administrative measures, such as correction orders or restoration orders, these measures will be imposed first. Criminal sanctions will only follow after failure to comply with these administrative orders. The government and the Democratic Party of Korea announced that they will continue their efforts to rationalize the sanctions regime for economic crimes by immediately beginning to identify and discuss further measures following this announcement. If, in line with the government’s policy, both the crime of breach of trust under the Korean Criminal Code and the special breach of trust offense under the KCC are abolished, the scope of personal criminal liability for directors and management (including major shareholders and “persons who direct the execution of business affairs” under the KCC) for breaches of duty resulting in losses to the company or its shareholders could be significantly reduced. In such cases, civil liability, such as in the context of shareholder derivative actions under Article 403 of the KCC or direct shareholder lawsuits, would largely remain as the available remedy. Consequently, the burden of preemptively assessing risk and defending such cases for directors and executives may be substantially alleviated. Additionally, concerns over the criminal process, including search and seizure, witness or reference questioning, and detention, would also likely be diminished. In practice, if the crime of breach of trust is abolished, ongoing criminal trials related to this offense could be subject to dismissal under Article 326, Subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and ongoing investigations could be dropped, as well. However, as avenues for redress through criminal liability would become limited, there may be an increase in civil litigation, including shareholder derivative actions as mentioned above. Accordingly, complementary protections, such as directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, are likely to become more important. In particular, with the government’s concurrent announcement to introduce a punitive damages system, the potential amount of civil damages could also expand. It should also be noted that the government intends to promptly enact substitute legislation to prevent any gaps in the prosecution of major crimes. The government has stated that such substitute legislation, which will be developed with the input of experts, is expected to clarify the elements of the crime of breach of trust and narrow the scope of punishable conduct. Therefore, rather than a complete abolition, there is a possibility that the law will be revised to limit or specify the elements of the crime, and it will be important to closely monitor these legislative developments. As outlined above, while moving to abolish the crime of breach of trust as a supplementary measure in response to the expansion of duties of directors and executives under the amended KCC, the government has reiterated its commitment to further amend the KCC to improve corporate governance and protect the rights of minority shareholders. Of particular note is the ongoing issue regarding the cancellation of treasury shares ? which, as previously discussed, has remained controversial and has led to a recent precedent-setting court injunction (Link). At the Korea Investment Summit held at the New York Stock Exchange on September 25, 2025, President Lee Jae-myung introduced an additional proposal to amend the KCC. He explained that these amendments would include reforms to the tax system to encourage greater dividend distributions and measures to prevent abusive, self-interested practices, such as the acquisition of treasury shares for management entrenchment. This signals the government’s continued commitment to pursue a KCC amendment mandating the cancellation of treasury shares, and thus, it will be important to closely monitor the progress of these legislative developments. As noted in our previous newsletter, the scope of listed companies required to disclose the holding status and disposal plans of treasury stock has been significantly broadened through strengthened disclosure requirements. Once the strengthened disclosure requirements are enacted, companies must, following resolution of the board, disclose this information in business reports, with the frequency of disclosures increased to twice annually. As a result, careful oversight of board resolutions and disclosures has become even more critical (Link). Furthermore, if a third amendment to the KCC ? including the mandatory cancellation of treasury shares ? is enacted, listed companies will need to pay careful attention to a wide range of areas, including investor relations, the disclosure and implementation of shareholder return plans, the conduct of general shareholder meetings, and improvements to board decision-making processes. We will continue to provide ongoing updates regarding follow-up legislation and market trends related to amendments to the KCC and corporate governance regulations. [Korean Version]
2025.10.02

ニュースレターもっと見る
ニュースレター
KFTC Announces “Comprehensive Plan for Enhancing Franchisee Rights” On September 23, 2025, the new Chairperson of the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) held a meeting with franchisees and announced the KFTC’s “Comprehensive Plan for Enhancing Franchisee Rights” (the “Plan”). The Plan aims to strengthen the rights and protect the interests of franchisees throughout the franchising process, from the initial launch, operations and business closure. The KFTC is first expected to complete the necessary legislative amendments, including to the Fair Franchise Transactions Act (“FFTA”), its Enforcement Decree and Notice, in order to implement the measures provided for under the Plan. 1. Key Features (1) Initial Launch Stage - systemic improvements to ensure sound launch of franchise business These measures focus on providing prospective franchisees timely access to accurate information about the intended franchise business, and thereby prevent the indiscriminate expansion of unsound brands operated by franchisors with insufficient business expertise. Measure Details New disclosure requirement for information statements (Requires amendment of the FFTA and its Enforcement Decree) Franchisors required promptly disclose changes to existing information statements, on an on-going basis, with post disclosure review by the KFTC (new franchise registrations would remain subject to prior review of the initial information statements by the KFTC) New process for KFTC confirmation of information disclosed by franchisors to prevent false disclosures Enhanced penalties for false disclosures New requirements regarding information statement content and disclosure process (Requires amendment of the FFTA Enforcement Decree and Notification) Information statement contents to be organized to track the order of the business life cycle (launch-operation-closure) Mandatory disclosure of key information material to the decision to launch the business (e.g., delivery app fees, penalties for early termination etc.) Requirement to provide of a summary to help prospective franchisees readily identify key terms and conditions Expand franchisors’ direct sales experience obligation (Requires amendment of the FFTA and Enforcement Decree) Currently, prospective new franchisors must have operated a direct-owned store in the same industry for at least one year in order to register a new franchise business ? the Plan would extent such requirement to existing franchisors who intend to transition to a new industry (2) Operational Stage ? ensure conduct of business “on equal terms” by enhancing franchisees’ bargaining power These measures are intended to enable franchisees, who have less relative bargaining power vis-à-vis franchisors, to be able to negotiate on equal terms. Measure Details Registration of franchisee associations (Requires amendment of the FFTA and Enforcement Decree) Franchisee associations that meet certain criteria will be able to register with the KFTC, and thereby gain official representative status Franchisors required to comply with franchisee associations’ request for consultation (Requires amendment of the FFTA and Enforcement Decree) Establish legal grounds for imposing sanctions (corrective orders) on franchisors that refuse a franchisee association’s request for consultation without just cause, to enhance the franchisees’ collective bargaining rights Franchisors may refuse such request if there is just cause, and the franchisees’ rights will be subject to certain other limitations (e.g., frequency of requests) Strengthen enforcement of unfair trade practices Strengthen monitoring and sanctions against common unfair trade practices by franchisors, such as imposing mandatory purchase obligations or unfair transfer of costs (3) Business Closure Stage ? minimize franchisee burden by ensuring decision making independence These measures are intended to assist franchisees who need to close their business, and mitigate the burden of excessive penalties. Measure Details Specify franchisees’ right to terminate franchise agreements (Requires amendment of the FFTA and Enforcement Decree) FFTA to specifically reference franchisees’ right to terminate franchise agreements, to allow early termination by franchisees without being subject to excessive penalties However, as such early termination may be against the general principle of compliance with contracts, restrictions will apply, including as to the grounds for termination Require prior notice of scheduled renewals and grant franchisees access to information statements (Requires amendment to the FFTA and Enforcement Decree) Require franchisors to provide franchisees notice of scheduled renewals of franchise agreements in order to protect franchisees from automatic contract renewals Mandatory access to information statements (including non-public items) to be granted to Franchisees whose franchise contracts are scheduled for renewal Disclosure of penalties for early termination (Requires amendment to the FFTA Enforcement Decree and Notification) Franchisors required to disclose “applicable average penalties for early termination” in information statements, so that prospective franchisees can clearly determine the applicable penalties 2. Implications The Plan reflects the KFTC’s strong commitment to transparency and fairness throughout the franchising process, and is expected to have a material impact on existing franchise business models and operations. Therefore, franchisors would be advised to prepare for the changes to be introduced under the Plan and manage potential legal exposure through preemptive measures, such as reviewing existing information statements management practices, developing strategies to address potential collective bargaining requests or contract terminations, and identifying other areas of potential exposure. As the KFTC plans to finalize the details of the Plan, including by conducting third-party studies and gathering industry opinions, we will continue to closely monitor future developments, including during the legislative amendment process. [Korean Version]
2025.09.29

ニュースレターもっと見る
ニュースレター
PIPC Announces “Plan to Strengthen Security Management System for Personal Information” On September 10, the Personal Information Protection Commission (“PIPC”) announced the “Plan to Strengthen the Security Management System for Personal Information” (“Plan”). Amid rising concerns over large-scale data breaches, the PIPC criticized the prevailing view of personal information protection as a mere cost burden, which leads to passive compliance by many companies adopting only the minimum legally required security measures. To foster proactive adoption of robust security measures by data controllers and to strengthen remedies for affected data subjects, the PIPC introduced three key strategic measures. 1. Proactive System Improvements The PIPC proposed the following policies aimed at preventing data breaches in large-scale personal information processing systems integral to daily lives: Enhanced Attack Surface Management (“ASM”)[1] for Major Personal Information Processing Systems: The PIPC proposed to enhance ASM through continuous monitoring of major personal information processing systems to detect anomalies[2] and eliminate vulnerabilities. The PIPC plans to issue detailed guidelines on anomaly types and response methods. Incentivize Proactive Measures: Data controllers that voluntarily implement additional encryption beyond the minimum statutory requirements or adopt systems to detect and block unusual activities will be eligible for incentives?e.g., reduced liability in the event of a data breach. Strengthening Secondary Harm Prevention through Leakage Monitoring: When illegally leaked personal information is detected (e.g., on dark web), the PIPC will facilitate timely information sharing with the affected businesses and individuals to prevent secondary harm. The PIPC also plans to pursue amendments to the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”) to establish a legal basis for penalizing unlawful online data distributors. Phased Application of ISMS-P Certification: The PIPC proposed a phased application of ISMS-P certification, whereby ISMS-P certification will be progressively mandated for key public institutions handling sensitive or large-scale personal information, telecommunications service providers, and mobile identity verification service providers. Planned changes also include preliminary/on-site assessments, stricter post-certification management, and enhanced oversight of certified companies that experience security incidents. 2. Strengthening of Internal Controls The PIPC also proposed measures to reinforce internal controls in personal information management, with emphasis on governance, investment and accountability of data controllers: Clear Minimum Investment Standards: Large-scale data controllers, who are required to designate a Chief Privacy Officer (“CPO”) with enhanced qualifications,[3] must also appoint at least one additional privacy officer and establish a dedicated privacy team. Moreover, companies allocating 10% or more of their IT budget to personal information protection (including security) may qualify for liability reductions in case of incidents, with tiered incentives linked to the budget size. CEO- and CPO-focused Internal Controls: The CEO will hold ultimate responsibility for risk management and internal controls related to personal information protection. For large-scale data controllers, the appointment of a CPO must be reported to the PIPC, and any appointment or dismissal must be approved by the board of directors. Promotion of Privacy Impact Assessment (“PIA”) in the Private Sector and Enhancing Expertise: The PIPC plans to lay the foundations for broader use of PIA in the private sector by specifying the scope, methods, and standards for PIA, as well as clarifying the procedures to mitigate liability in case of incidents. Oversight of Large-Scale Data Processors and Solution Providers: The PIPC plans to establish a legal basis to strengthen oversight of large-scale data processors (delegatees) and solution providers, particularly those servicing small- and medium-sized enterprises with limited personal information protection capabilities. The PIPC will also introduce a new certification framework to assess and ensure comprehensive protection of personal information processed through such solutions. 3. Robust Enforcement and Effective Remedies for Rights Protection Lastly, the PIPC proposed measures to ensure robust enforcement and enhance remedies for victims in a data breach: Swift and Rigorous Investigation and Enforcement: Policy studies are planned to enhance the effectiveness of sanctions, including raising administrative fines and imposing punitive penalties on companies that repeatedly experience data breaches. Additionally, the PIPC will establish a forensic lab for rapid incident investigations and will require timely notifications to the affected parties when potential leaks are detected, even when data breaches are not conclusively confirmed. Enhanced Remedies for Victims: The PIPC proposed mechanisms to redirect administrative fines levied for violations under the PIPA towards victim compensation, alongside expedited mediation processes for personal information disputes. Personal Information Ombudsman Program: The PIPC plans to introduce a “Personal Information Ombudsman” program to enable civil society’s active involvement in market oversight, system recommendations, and policy advocacy. Building a Stronger Foundation for Remedies: The PIPC will invest in training specialists, bolstering technical analysis capabilities, and supporting development of insurance products related to data breaches to improve compensation frameworks. To implement the Plan, the PIPC aims to prepare the necessary legal amendments by 2025 for submission to the National Assembly in early 2026, following stakeholder consultations. As many of these measures may significantly impact the compliance obligation of businesses handling personal information, companies are advised to closely monitor upcoming legislative amendments, guidelines, and related policy developments. [1] Activities that continuously identify, analyze, and monitor vulnerabilities and paths that attackers may target to reduce security threats. [2] Abnormal authentication attempts (such as analysis of access routes and frequency), attempts to download personal information, etc. [3] Refers to (i) entities with annual sales of KRW 150 billion or more that process sensitive or unique identification information of 50,000 or more individuals, or personal information of 1 million or more individuals; (ii) universities with 20,000 or more enrolled students as of December 31 of the previous year; (iii) tertiary hospitals; and (iv) public system operating agencies. [Korean Version]
2025.09.25

ニュースレターもっと見る

김·장 홍보

Ranked in the World’s Top 100 Law Firms for the 12th Consecutive Year

For the 12th 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.
もっと見る
Kim & Chang Ranked “Tier 1” in All Eight Practice Areas

Kim & Chang once again received “Tier 1” (top-tier) rankings in all areas surveyed for Korea in the 2025 edition of IFLR1000. Additionally, 56 of our attorneys were recognized in their respective practice areas.
もっと見る
147 Professionals “Recommended”

In the 2025 edition of Lexology Index: South Korea (formerly, WWL: Korea), 147 attorneys, patent attorneys and certified public accountants from Kim & Chang across 22 fields were recognized for their expertise in their respective fields.
もっと見る

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

本ウェブサイトは一般的な情報を提供する目的で制作されたもので、法律諮問や広報のためのものではありません。本ウェブサイトから取得した情報によって問題が発生して直接・間接的に損害を受けたとしても、金・張法律事務所はいかなる法的責任も負わず、このウェブサイトで提供する情報に基づき措置を取ることに先立ち、必ず当所に法律諮問を求められるようお願いします。

最近、金・張法律事務所及び／又は所属メンバーを詐称する事例が発生しています。代表的な例としては、当所又は所属メンバーを詐称して訴訟や契約、投資を勧誘する行為、金品や個人情報を要求する行為、採用を提案したり、これを口実に金品を要求する行為等があります。当所はこのような勧誘、要求による諸般の問題に対していかなる法的責任も負いません。

当所のメンバーは、公式ウェブサイト(www.kimchang.com) に掲載された連絡先を使用してクライアントとコミュニケーションを取っております。その他のメールアドレス、電話番号、SMS又はSNSを使用して業務を遂行することはありません。また金品や個人情報等を要求することもありません。

金・張法律事務所及び／又は所属メンバーを名乗る疑わしい連絡を受けた場合、代表電話番号（02-3703-1114）又は電子メール（lawkim@kimchang.com）に連絡の上ご確認ください。

레이어 닫기