SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice Contributed by: John H Choi, Han Soon Choi, Changhun Lee and Seungjun Woo, Shin & Kim
platform Kakao T, which connects passengers with taxi drivers. The KFTC found that Kakao Mobility had configured and operated the dispatch algorithm used by the Kakao T platform in a manner that favoured its affiliated (franchise) taxis over unaffiliated (non-fran - chise) taxis when assigning ride requests. The KFTC concluded that this conduct constituted unlawful dis - criminatory treatment and imposed remedial orders together with an administrative surcharge of approxi - mately KRW27.1 billion. In May 2025, however, the Seoul High Court reversed the KFTC’s decision in its entirety and ruled in favour of Kakao Mobility. The court held that franchise taxis and non-franchise taxis could not be regarded as trading counterparts in equivalent positions and, therefore, prioritising franchise taxis in ride dispatch did not con - stitute unlawful discriminatory treatment in transaction terms. The KFTC has appealed the Seoul High Court’s judgment, and the case is currently pending before the Korean Supreme Court. 1.2 Recent Developments Recent Developments in Antitrust Litigation The MRFTA was wholly amended, which took effect on 30 December 2021. The wholly amended MRFTA presently in effect (the current MRFTA) contains sev - eral changes and brought many changes to the three types of antitrust litigation outlined below. Administrative Lawsuit Against the KFTC In relation to the Administrative Lawsuit Against the KFTC, the area often at issue in South Korea is the administrative lawsuit regarding collusion. Under the MRFTA, collusion requires an “agreement”, and the previous version of the MRFTA did not include a specific provision regarding information exchange. The current MRFTA includes information exchange that substantially restricts competition as a type of col - lusion, and when external conformity of actions, such as a joint increase in price and information exchange, is found, an “agreement” is presumed by law. As an enforcement action against the exchange of competitively sensitive information, the KFTC found in February 2026 that four commercial banks had unlawfully exchanged information regarding their
loan-to-value (LTV) ratios used in mortgage lending. The KFTC concluded that the information exchange constituted an unlawful cartel under the MRFTA and imposed remedial orders together with an administra - tive surcharge totalling approximately KRW272 billion. The banks have challenged the KFTC’s decision by fil - ing administrative appeals with the Seoul High Court, where the cases are currently pending. This case is particularly significant because it is the first enforce - ment action applying the newly introduced prohibi - tion on information exchange cartels under the current MRFTA. Antitrust Damages Lawsuit Recently, in cases where a violation of the MRFTA has been found, damages lawsuits have been brought more actively. The KFTC has concentrated on sectors closely tied to people’s livelihoods – such as food, education and construction – and has adopted an increasingly aggressive approach to cartel enforce - ment, imposing aggregate surcharges totalling KRW1.69 trillion (approximately USD1.16 billion) in four major cartel cases during the first half of 2026 alone. Following these enforcement actions, civil damages claims brought by small businesses and consumers allegedly harmed by the cartels are now being actively pursued. In an Antitrust Damages Lawsuit, it was difficult for the victims to prove the amount of damages incurred due to the violation of the MRFTA. The current MRFTA introduces a new system of court orders to submit materials. Under this court order system, pursuant to a party’s request in an Antitrust Damages Lawsuit, the perpetrator can be ordered to submit materials necessary to prove damage or calculate the amount of damages. This is expected to alleviate some of the Criminal litigation was previously conducted pursu - ant to the KFTC’s referral of the violator for criminal prosecution after finding a violation of the MRFTA. It seems that, recently, the number of criminal litigation cases being pursued by investigating agencies, sepa - rate from the KFTC’s referral, is increasing. Investigat - ing agencies are pursuing violators based on other laws that allow punishment of some violations of burden of proving damages. Antitrust Criminal Lawsuit
156 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook