SOUTH KOREA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Hwansung Park, Eunwoo (Vera) Lee, Hankil D. Kang and Jung Heo, Lee & Ko
or obfuscated domains, linking-driven infringement, and “mirror sites” that immediately appear to replace blocked sites have presented persistent enforcement challenges. The amendment aims to respond swiftly to the chang- ing digital environment and to provide effective tools for tackling copyright infringement by: (i) treating the operation of linking sites that provide links to ille- gally copied works for profit as an infringing activity; (ii) introducing a new “emergency blocking system” targeting illegal websites whose servers are located overseas; and (iii) introducing a punitive damages regime and strengthening criminal penalties. Under the new punitive damages provision, in cases of intentional infringement of proprietary copyright, the court may set the amount of compensation at up to five times the amount of loss. The court is to determine the compensation amount by considering factors such as the degree of wilfulness, the scale of the damage, the economic benefit obtained by the infringer, and the duration and frequency of the infringement. This change is expected to make it easier for rights-holders to pursue more aggressive enforcement strategies through civil litigation and to obtain stronger protection in infringement and dam- ages actions. In addition, criminal penalties for copy- right infringement have been increased from “up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW50 million” to “up to seven years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW100 million”. By broadening the scope of regulation of online-based infringement and substantially strengthening remedies for damage recovery, these amendments refine the copyright protection system toward greater effective- ness. For content-based enterprises, the revisions are expected to enhance the enforceability of rights, while for online platforms and service providers they signifi- cantly raise the importance of legal risk management aimed at preventing and responding to infringement. Prospects for integrating a K-Discovery system into Korean IP law On 29 January 2026, the amendment to the Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Between Large Enterprises and Small and Medium
Enterprises codified Korea’s first discovery-like mech- anism. This reform is a landmark shift for the domestic legal system, as it provides a structured solution to the persistent difficulty of accessing evidence controlled by opposing parties in technology misappropriation disputes – an issue traditional civil procedures previ- ously failed to resolve. The K-Discovery system consists of three core com- ponents: (i) expert inspection; (ii) evidence preserva- tion orders; and (iii) depositions. By blending civil law- style expert inspections with US-style depositions, the system significantly enhances evidence access in technology theft cases. Specifically, courts may now appoint experts to conduct formal investigations dur- ing litigation involving the misappropriation of techni- cal data, providing a potent investigative tool where critical evidence is exclusively held by the defendant. To maintain confidentiality, the amendment aligns with the new Attorney-Client Privilege provisions in the Attorney-at-Law Act, ensuring that communications and materials exchanged between parties and their counsel are exempt from discovery. The amendment includes a two-year transition period, which will be used to harmonise discovery mecha- nisms across other key statutes – including the Patent Act, Utility Model Act, Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and the Civil Procedure Act – and to build the necessary judicial information infrastruc- ture. Ultimately, K-Discovery is expected to become a standard feature of Korean civil litigation. While this initial rollout focuses on co-operation between large and small enterprises, it sets a critical precedent. As these procedures are integrated into broader IP laws, companies that were once deterred by evidentiary hurdles will be better positioned to pursue claims. Under this new regime, success will increasingly depend on a company’s ability to partici- pate effectively in technical hearings, where parties must logically delineate contested technologies and justify the necessity of specific documents or materi- als.
304 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook