SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice Contributed by: John H Choi, Han Soon Choi, Changhun Lee and Seungjun Woo, Shin & Kim
Shin & Kim 23F, D-Tower (D2) 17 Jongno 3-gil Jongno-gu
Seoul 03155 South Korea
Tel: +82 2 316 4232 Fax: +82 2 756 6226
Email: jhchoi@shinkim.com Web: www.shinkim.com/eng
1. Introduction 1.1 Current Framework for Private Antitrust Litigation Three Types of Antitrust Litigation Antitrust litigation in South Korea can largely be clas - sified into three types. The first occurs when the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), the agency which reg - ulates violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA) in South Korea, imposes measures such as remedies or a surcharge on a violator of the MRFTA, in which case the violator may file an adminis - trative lawsuit against the KFTC for cancellation of the measures (Administrative Lawsuit Against the KFTC). The second type of litigation is a civil lawsuit in which a victim of a violation of the MRFTA seeks damages against the violator, who is the perpetrator (Antitrust Damage Lawsuit). The third type is a criminal lawsuit against a violator of the MRFTA after investigation by the investigating agency and filing of charges (Anti - trust Criminal Lawsuit). Most Important or Novel Antitrust Cases Liner shipping companies case In February 2024, the Seoul High Court ruled that the KFTC does not have the authority to regulate joint conduct among liner shipping companies concerning freight rates, as this falls under the exclusive purview of the Minister of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisher - ies (MOF) – pursuant to the Marine Transportation Act (MTA). Although the liner shipping companies failed to adhere to the MTA’s procedural requirements, the court determined that even in cases of non-compli - ance with the MTA, the MOF retains the sole regula -
tory authority. Against this backdrop, the court over - turned the KFTC’s decision that had found the liner shipping companies liable for illegal cartel conduct. However, in April 2025, the Supreme Court over - turned the Seoul High Court’s ruling. While the court acknowledged the long-standing recognition of the necessity and reasonableness of shipping alliances, it placed particular emphasis on recent developments – the growing view that it is appropriate to regulate the industry based on market competition principles. The court also noted that several foreign jurisdictions are in fact modifying their competition law accordingly. This decision is significant in that it clearly affirms the principle that the MRFTA should apply to all sectors, and that any exemptions must be recognised only under very limited circumstances. Google anti-fragmentation agreement case The KFTC found that Google, through its Mobile Appli - cation Distribution Agreements and related contracts with mobile device manufacturers, imposed anti-frag - mentation obligations that prohibited manufacturers from pre-installing Android-based fork operating sys - tems (fork OS) and competing app markets developed by Google’s rivals on all smart mobile devices they released. The KFTC further concluded that Google also prevented manufacturers from launching devic - es equipped with their own Android fork OS. On this basis, the KFTC determined that Google had abused its market-dominant position and engaged in unfair trade practices, imposing a fine of approximately
176 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook