SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice Contributed by: John H. Choi, Changhun Lee, Hyunah Kim and Jae-Hyuk Choi, Shin & Kim
companies were fined and sentenced to impris - onment by US courts. 5.6 Relevance of Effective Compliance Programmes A company’s effective compliance programme has not been considered as a factor in imposing sanctions in a cartel case. The amended MRFTA provisions, effective from 21 June 2024, have introduced legal provisions that could potentially reduce remedial meas - ures or administrative surcharges for companies with compliance programmes. Nonetheless, the amended MRFTA Enforcement Decree and the Compliance Program Guidelines, set for legisla - tion, state that even if a compliance programme is implemented, remedial measures or adminis - trative surcharges will not be reduced in “hard- core” cartel cases such as price fixing, output restrictions, market allocation, and bid-rigging. This reaffirms the existing practice where such reductions were not granted for hard-core cartel cases. 5.7 Mandatory Consumer Redress The KFTC does not have the authority to require a company involved in a cartel to compensate those who have suffered damages due to the cartel. Such claimants may be compensated for damages through civil lawsuits. That is, there is no mandatory consumer redress system. 5.8 Judicial Review or Appeal A company that has been sanctioned by the KFTC for participating in a cartel may file a law - suit to cancel the KFTC’s decision by submitting a complaint to the Seoul High Court against the KFTC within 30 days of the date of notification of the KFTC decision. The KFTC must submit an answer to the complaint submitted by the plain - tiff. Once the answer is submitted, the court usu -
ally sets a hearing to organise the issues. When the court determines that the issues have been organised to a certain degree, the court will set a hearing for examination of the evidence, such as witness examination. Hearings are usually set one to two months apart. After the hearings, when the court determines that the facts have been settled to the extent that it can announce a decision, the court will end the hearings and schedule announcement of its decision. The parties may freely submit briefs and evidence without limit until hearings have ended, unless the court sets a limit. Commencement of the cancellation lawsuit above does not mean that the KFTC’s case record is transferred to the Seoul High Court. The KFTC must submit materials that were the bases for its decision as evidence at the litiga - tion stage. At the litigation stage, the plaintiff may present new arguments and evidence that were not presented or submitted at the KFTC stage. A party that seeks to object to the Seoul High Court’s decision may file an appeal to the Supreme Court within two weeks of receiving a written copy of the Seoul High Court’s decision. Mostly, however, the Supreme Court makes a decision with respect to the law only and not the facts. According to the KFTC’s annual statisti - cal report, 19.1% of its decisions (including non- cartel cases) were challenged in court. Between 2001 and 2023, among all lawsuits seeking to cancel KFTC decisions that resulted in final and conclusive judgments (including non-cartel cases), 59.5% were dismissed, 19.7% partially upheld, and 11.0% fully upheld. 5.9 Timeline of Cartel Enforcement Process The investigation phase typically lasts around one year. However, in some cases, it has extend - ed to two or three years due to various factors
339 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook