SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice Contributed by: John H Choi, Han Soon Choi, Changhun Lee and Seungjun Woo, Shin & Kim
On the other hand, even if some of the violators have obtained mitigations of, or exemptions from, the KFTC’s dispositions or criminal prosecution proce - dures, for reasons such as leniency or co-operation with the investigation, this does not reduce or exempt them from liability for damages to the victim. 9.2 Contribution Where a victim prevails in a damages lawsuit against multiple violators, the violator who has compensated the damages suffered by the victim can file a civil law - suit against the other violators, claiming compensa - tion for the portion of the damages paid beyond their liability. In this case, with respect to the criteria for determining whether the violator has paid compensa - tion beyond their liability to the victim, the Supreme Court suggests using “the degree of wrongdoing of the joint tortfeasor in the joint illegal acts” as a cri - terion. In the case of an Administrative Lawsuit Against the KFTC, the business entity may petition for suspen - sion of the enforcement of a disposition on the ground that there is a risk of irreparable damage due to the disposition of the KFTC, while claiming cancellation of the disposition on the ground that the disposition is unlawful. The court may decide to suspend the enforcement of the disposition before its judgment on the case on the merits on petition by that business entity or on its own official authority. Antitrust Damage Lawsuit 10. Other Remedies 10.1 Injunctions Administrative Lawsuit Against the KFTC In the case of an Antitrust Damage Lawsuit, the court’s role becomes limited to the extent of ordering the perpetrator to monetarily compensate for the dam - ages, and deciding whether it will accept the victim’s request for provisional seizure for effective recovery of damages. In order for the victim to request seizure by rendering the right to claim damages arising from the MRFTA violation as a right to preservation, there must be a serious concern that it may not be possible to enforce
the award without the seizure, even if the victim pre - vails in the damages lawsuit. The fact that there is a concern that it will be very difficult or impossible to enforce the award will be acknowledged depending on whether the level of situation that provides for the court’s presumption of certainty, if not its confidence, has been shown. When the victim requests the seizure, the court usu - ally decides whether to accept the request without notifying the perpetrator. There are no additional steps that the victim must take in order to have the court decide to accept the request without notifying the per - petrator. The court’s decision can be made within one month from the time the request is made. On the other hand, if the victim has obtained a deci - sion approving the seizure but lost in the main case, the perpetrator can request the cancellation of the seizure on the grounds that they have prevailed in the main case, and the victim could be liable for damages if they have inflicted damages on the perpetrator by In the case of an Antitrust Damage Lawsuit, the par - ties can resolve the case in accordance with alterna - tive dispute resolution procedures by going through procedures such as reconciliation and mediation both inside and outside the lawsuit. Particularly for a case regarding damages caused by collusion, it takes a considerable amount of time and money to calculate the appropriate amount of damages. Resolving the case through alternative dispute resolution proce - dures can be effective for all the parties concerned. However, to do so is not mandated. the decision that approved the seizure. 10.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution
11. Funding and Costs 11.1 Litigation Funding
There is no regulation in South Korea that limits or guarantees litigation funding in relation to litigation procedures.
187 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook