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 admin - istrative 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 perpetra - tor (“Antitrust Damages Lawsuit”). The third type is a criminal lawsuit against a violator of the MRFTA after investigation by the investigating agency and filing of charges (“Antitrust Criminal Lawsuit”). In January 2021, the KFTC found that Naver, the operator of Korea’s leading web portal service, had modified the search algorithm used by its compari - son-shopping service, Naver Shopping, in a manner that favoured merchants participating in its own open- market platform. The KFTC imposed remedial orders and an administrative surcharge of approximately KRW26.6 billion. It concluded that Naver’s conduct constituted unlawful self-preferencing, amounting to Most Important or Novel Antitrust Cases Naver Shopping self-preferencing case
both an abuse of market dominance and an unfair trade practice under the MRFTA. In December 2022, the Seoul High Court upheld the KFTC’s decision. In October 2025, however, the Supreme Court reversed the Seoul High Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a platform operator’s status as a dominant undertaking does not, by itself, give rise to a general duty to treat competing products or services equally. The Court further held that Naver’s changes to the comparison shopping search algorithm cannot, with - out more, be presumed to be anti-competitive merely because the case involved a so-called “leveraging” theory (ie, that the conduct in the comparison shop - ping market allegedly affected competition in the neighbouring open-market platform market). Rather, the Court emphasised that adjusting and refining search algorithms may constitute ordinary commer - cial conduct and a legitimate form of competition on the merits. This decision represents the Supreme Court’s first rul - ing addressing self-preferencing by a digital platform. It is expected to serve as the leading precedent in determining the legality of various forms of self-pref - erencing by platform operators under Korean com - petition law. Kakao Mobility franchise taxi self-preferencing case Kakao Mobility, a leading provider in Korea’s ride- hailing app market, operates the smartphone-based
155 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook