最新消息

Lee & Ko’s Antitrust & Competition Practice Group successfully represented a prominent Korean insurance company in criminal proceedings concerning alleged bid rigging in connection with insurance contract bids issued by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH). Following the acquittal by the trial court, Lee & Ko successfully defended the acquittal on appeal.

Despite the existence of leniency applications submitted by certain participants, Lee & Ko carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of the statements and evidence. The appellate court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of collusion. This case is particularly noteworthy as the acquittal was upheld not because of a lack of intent, but because the Prosecutor’s Office failed to sufficiently prove there was a collusive agreement.

This outcome demonstrates Lee & Ko’s command of complex evidentiary issues, rigorous factual analysis, and comprehensive defense strategy in the trial and appellate court proceedings. Lee & Ko systematically challenged the evidence, including leniency statements, by scrutinizing their admissibility and credibility and persuasively highlighting the limitations. The acquittal reflects the Antitrust & Competition Practice Group's depth of expertise in complex cartel defense, from evidence analysis to appellate advocacy.

Lee & Ko has advised the Korean consortium (as borrower) comprised of Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd., POSCO Eco & Challenge Co. Ltd. and Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd., in connection with the consortium’s Syndicated Discounted Repurchase Facility financing for the construction of the Panama Metro Line 3. 

The financing was structured as a securitization of government payment certificates (Certificados de No Objeción, or CDNOs) via three separate facilities provided by KEXIM, IDB Invest (the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank), and a syndicate of seven international banks covered by K-Sure.

The funding will be used by the consortium to extend the Panama Metro Line 3 under the Panama Canal and further demonstrates the trust that international financiers place in the technical expertise of Korean contractors exporting their skills and know-how worldwide. 

Lee & Ko successfully represented a prominent Korean entertainment company in an international arbitration administered by the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (“SHIAC”) against a Chinese software company, securing a full award in favor of the client. The dispute arose from a licensing agreement under which the Korean entertainment company granted the Chinese firm the right to develop games utilizing the intellectual property of its affiliated artists. The case involved complex factual and legal contentions, centered primarily on the attribution of liability for significant development delays and the fulfillment of contractual conditions for termination.

As the governing law of the contract was Chinese law, the case demanded a meticulous and nuanced analysis of the local legal framework and contract law principles. Furthermore, because both the seat of arbitration and the arbitral institution were located in China, the proceedings required extensive experience and strategic expertise in navigating the specific procedural nuances of Chinese international arbitration.

Leveraging its deep track record of handling high-stakes disputes in China, Lee & Ko’s International Arbitration Team acted as sole counsel throughout the proceedings. The team successfully led all written submissions and hearing proceedings against local Chinese counsel, ultimately securing a "complete victory" for the client. This outcome underscores Lee & Ko’s dominant capability in China-related disputes and its proven ability to deliver favorable results in challenging foreign jurisdictions.

Lee & Ko represented SK Multi Utility Co., Ltd. (a power generation subsidiary of SK Chemicals), together with its Chief Executive Officer and Plant Manager, in a criminal prosecution alleging violations of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act (“SAPA”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) arising from a fatal accident at a coal unloading facility involving an employee of a contractor. Following a full acquittal at first instance, Lee & Ko secured dismissal of the prosecution’s appeal, and the appellate court affirmed the acquittal in full.

On December 20, 2022, at a coal unloading facility of Company A, a dump truck loaded with coal overturned during the unloading process when the driver, employed by a transportation company, raised the truck bed without opening the rear gate. A contractor employee who was present at the site was crushed by the coal and the vehicle and died.

The appellate court held that a causal link could not be established between the fatal accident and the alleged breaches, including an alleged failure to protect workers from falling-object hazards and an alleged failure to establish an adequate safety and health management system under SAPA. The court further reasoned that, where the accident was clearly attributable to the driver’s operational error, imposing criminal liability on management solely by reason of the occurrence of the harmful result would be unwarranted, underscoring that SAPA does not impose strict result-based liability.

In circumstances where there were no settled judicial principles on causation under SAPA, Lee & Ko conducted a detailed analysis of the accident mechanism and surrounding facts, and presented a reasoned case that criminal liability requires proof of causation between any breach of statutory safety and health obligations and the fatal outcome.

This judgment is expected to serve as an important reference point in assessing causation in ongoing SAPA prosecutions and in future cases arising from fatal industrial accidents.

On June 13, 2025, LG Chem entered into a Business Transfer Agreement to sell its Water Solutions business to Korea Water Solution Holdings, a subsidiary of Glenwood Private Equity, with the rights and obligations of the business subsequently transferred to NanoH2O, Inc. As legal counsel to LG Chem, Lee & Ko successfully provided comprehensive legal services throughout the entire process leading to the successful closing of the transaction.

This carve-out transaction involved significant complexities, as the seller was required not only to divide and transfer part of the site it currently occupies but also to transfer contracts, workforce, licenses, assets, rights, and obligations on a detailed, item-by-item basis. Additionally, to ensure a smooth transition, both parties had to agree on various operational matters, such as joint use of facilities, utility supply, and transition support.

Throughout the process, Lee & Ko provided swift and effective legal counsel on issues ranging from the division and sale of the factory site, the review of regulatory requirements for business and environmental permits, to negotiating and executing ancillary agreements essential for the seamless execution of the business transfer. The firm’s prompt and strategic advice played a critical role in the successful completion of the transaction.
 

Lee & Ko is representing a Taiwanese medical device supplier in appellate proceedings arising from an international civil dispute against a Korean diagnostic kit manufacturer in connection with a medical device supply agreement.

The dispute concerns the supply of COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic test kits to the Taiwanese market during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key issues include performance of contractual obligations, alleged deficiencies in product performance, and the corresponding scope of payment obligations under the agreement. In the first instance, the court ruled against the supplier, finding that no defect in the rapid diagnostic kits had been established. Following its appointment at the appellate stage, Lee & Ko has undertaken a comprehensive review of the trial court’s reasoning and overall analytical framework.

In the appellate proceedings, Lee & Ko is addressing not only issues of contractual interpretation relating to claims for payment, but also a range of complex legal and technical questions. These include applicable medical device performance standards, the adequacy of quality management systems, and the extent to which actions taken by overseas regulatory authorities may influence the assessment of civil liability.

Drawing on its understanding of Taiwan’s regulatory framework and academic environment, the firm has worked in close coordination with local regulatory and academic experts to obtain authoritative expert opinions. These materials have been carefully integrated into the appellate strategy to ensure that the court is presented with a scientifically grounded and legally coherent analysis.

This case represents a multifaceted cross-border dispute involving international distribution arrangements, product performance issues, and foreign regulatory considerations. In the appellate proceedings, Lee & Ko is systematically organizing both the factual record and the governing legal principles, and advancing persuasive arguments from legal and technical perspectives to support a reasoned and balanced determination.
 

Lee & Ko represented Alvogen in an investigation by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) concerning alleged collusion between Alvogen and AstraZeneca relating to certain oncology drugs.

Following a three-year investigation, the KFTC issued an Examiner’s Report in June 2022 concluding that Alvogen’s agreement not to produce and sell generic versions of Zoladex, Casodex, and Arimidex (collectively, “DEX Drugs”) in exchange for exclusive distribution rights for AstraZeneca’s products constituted unlawful collusion. The KFTC imposed corrective measures, an administrative fine, and referred the matter for potential criminal prosecution.

In response, Lee & Ko, together with its in-house Competition Economics Consulting Group (CECG), submitted detailed economic and legal analyses arguing that (i) delays in generic development were attributable to the inherent scientific and technical complexities of oncology drug development, (ii) the grant of exclusive distribution rights was consistent with ordinary industry practice, and (iii) no economic compensation was exchanged for restricting competition, such that the arrangement did not constitute a “reverse payment” agreement.

As a result, the KFTC reduced the applicable surcharge rate to 3% (from the initially suggested 5–7%), imposed an administrative fine of approximately KRW 1.2 billion, and exempted Alvogen from criminal referral.

In subsequent administrative litigation before the Seoul High Court, Lee & Ko successfully challenged the KFTC’s findings with respect to Casodex and Arimidex. Although the court acknowledged the existence of certain agreements, it held that their anticompetitive effects had not been established. The court therefore overturned the KFTC’s decision with respect to those two products. With respect to Zoladex, the court concluded that the administrative fine could not be independently calculated, resulting in the cancellation of the related corrective orders and the entirety of the administrative fine.

The decision is significant in that, although collusion was recognized for one product, all administrative fines were ultimately cancelled. It represents an important precedent concerning non-compete arrangements in the pharmaceutical sector.