Recent Developments

Lee & Ko’s IP Perspective is the Lee & Ko IP & Technology Group’s periodic report aimed at providing news and updates about notable decisions, major trends and key developments in Korea’s IP legal landscape. As a service to clients and friends, it is written and edited by the firm’s IP attorneys. Designed to not only provide more information, IP Perspective includes Lee & Ko’s in-depth analyses, opinions, and expert outlook on the latest IP and legal trends in Korea, Asia, and beyond. In this issue, we cover a broad range of IP litigation and strategy considerations, including : 1. Implementation of Korean attorney-client-privilege (ACP) and K-Discovery 2. An Introduction to the Doctrine of Equivalents in Korea  3. Recent Trends in Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes (Biosimilars)  4. Leading Korean Supreme Court Precedent on Luxury Bag Reform and Upcycling  Introduction of Attorney-Client Privilege and the Korean-Style Discovery System The amended Attorney Act, which primarily introduces the AttorneyClient Privilege(hereinafter ACP), is scheduled to take effect on February 20, 2027. This amendmentmarks the first statutory enactment of ACP in Korea, protecting communications andmaterials between attorneys and clients from disclosure during discovery or evidencegathering in Korean litigation. Furthermore, a KoreanStyle Discovery System is being introduced for the first timethrough amendments to the Act on Promotion of Cooperation between Large andSmall / Medium Enterprises (hereinafter the Cooperation Act). Key features include :(1) the introduction of an expert factfinding system, (2) the establishment of evidencepreservation orders, and (3) the implementation of a party examination system. Thesemeasures focus on substantially strengthening access to evidence in disputes involvingtechnology misappropriation. The KoreanStyle Discovery System under the CooperationAct applies when a commissioning enterprise improperly uses or provides a commissionedenterprise's technical data for its own benefit or that of a third party (an act definedas misappropriation of technical data). This system is scheduled to commence onFebruary 20, 2028.   1. Contents of the Korean ACP System     While many countries, including the United States, have long recognized ACP as a core right essential for legal assistance — protecting the confidentiality of documents, data, and information exchanged between a client and its attorney regarding case representation or legal consultation—Korea had not previously institutionally recognized ACP.     Under the existing Attorney Act, Article 26 only stipulated a broad duty of confidentiality, stating that “an attorney or former attorney shall not disclose secrets learned in the course of their duties,” without guaranteeing a right to maintain such confidentiality.     The amended Attorney Act now provides that:     1）An attorney and a client (or prospective client) may refuse to disclose confidential communications made for the purpose of providing or receiving legal assistance regarding a legal case or matter;     2）An attorney may refuse to disclose documents or materials prepared for litigation,investigation, or inquiry related to a case for which the attorney is retained;      3）However, disclosure is permitted in exceptional cases, such as: With the client'sconsent; where there is a significant public interest need (e.g., if the attorney is an accomplice to the client, if the client is involved in illegal activities, or if the client uses or intends to use the communications or materials for illegal purposes); or if necessary for the attorney to exercise or defend their own rights in a dispute with the client.         The amended law will take effect on February 20, 2027. Please refer to the details below:     2. ACP Prior to the Implementation of the Amended Attorney Act     Since the previous Attorney Act did not explicitly codify the ACP system, it was unclear whether confidential communications or legal consultation materials between an attorney and a client could be withheld from investigation or trial proceedings. Consequently, investigative authorities repeatedly seized documents and electronic information generated between attorneys and clients.      In this regard, in February 2024, Lee & Ko successfully argued in a case where prosecutors seized communication materials between its client (an asset management company) and Lee & Ko attorneys that such materials were protected by attorneyclient privilege, rendering the seizure illegal. This argument was partially accepted by the court (Seoul Southern District Court Decision No. 2023Bo4, rendered on February 23, 2024). Recently, the Supreme Court rejected the prosecutor's appeal, upholding Lee & Ko's position by ruling that ”the seizure of legal consultation documents, etc., generated between a suspect or defendant and their defense counsel (including prospective counsel) potentially infringes upon the constitutional right to receive legal assistance and, in principle, should not be permitted“ (Supreme Court Decision No. 2024Mo730, rendered on February 20, 2026).     Although the Supreme Court ruling confirmed that ACP could be recognized based on the Constitution even before the amended Attorney-Act's effective date of February 20, 2027, the specific requirements and scope of its application remained unclear. 3. Key Features of the Newly Introduced Korean ACP System     The key features of the newly introduced ACP system, examined by article, are as follows:     1) Article 26-2, Paragraph 1     This provision extends protection not only to current clients but also to prospective clients. It grants the right to refuse disclosure individually to the attorney, the client, and the prospective client. Specifically, it stipulates that the attorney is an independent holder of this right, rather than merely exercising the client's right on their behalf.     The right applies only to communications regarding legal cases or legal matters;thus, it cannot be invoked for non-legal business communications, even with an  attorney. Furthermore, since the right is defined as the ability to keep confidential communications undisclosed; therefore, if the content is disclosed to a third party, the right can no longer be exercised, even if the communication was initially confidential.     2) Article 26-2, Paragraph 2     This paragraph expands the scope to include documents or materials prepared for “inquiries” in addition to litigation and investigations. This provides a legal basis to refuse submission demands during administrative investigations or on-site inspections, beyond general civil and criminal proceedings.      While early drafts of the amendment sought to protect ”documents, materials, or objects submitted by the client to the attorney,“ this was limited in the final version to documents or materials created by the attorney related to the case. This limitation aims to prevent potential side effects, such as the intentional storage of items or evidence with an attorney to evade disclosure. Notably, the right under this paragraph belongs to both the attorney and the client; prospective clients cannot exercise this specific right.      3) Article 26-2, Paragraph 3     This paragraph stipulates four exceptions where the right to maintain confidentiality does not apply:     (1) Client consent;     (2) Significant public interest needs related to illegal acts;     (3) Necessity for the attorneys to exercise their defense rights;     (4) Special provisions under other laws.     While items 1, 3, and 4 are relatively clear, item 2 involves terms like ”other illegal acts“ and ”significant public interest needs,“ whose interpretation may be contentious. The scope of these exceptions is expected to become clearer through future court interpretations.     4) Supplementary Provisions     The amendment will take effect on February 20, 2027, one year after promulgation. It also applies retroactively to communications and documents created before the enforcement date. 4. Implications and Expected Future Issues     With this amendment, the attorney-client privilege is now explicitly recognized as a legal right, which is expected to substantially guarantee the right to legal assistance and strengthen the defense rights of suspects and defendants during investigations and trials. Since this right is recognized only when receiving assistance from an attorney under the Attorney Act, it is also expected to positively foster trust between clients and attorneys.      In Korean legal practice, where a discovery system from common law did not exist, discussions on attorney-client privilege have traditionally centered primarily around criminal cases (especially search and seizure by investigative agencies). However, as explained in Section II below, with the introduction of Korean-Style Discovery System through the amendment of the Cooperation Act and its expected adoption in other laws, ACP is anticipated to play a crucial role in civil disputes as well.     Meanwhile, it is expected that practical precedents will be established by court rulings on parts where there is room for dispute regarding the interpretation of the amended law. For instance, various issues are expected to arise, such as:     ■ Whether communications between in-house counsel and employees can be included in the scope of ACP protection;     ■  How to set the scope of ACP protection in relation to each employee when the client is a corporation;     ■  How to distinguish the scope of protection for communications or documents where legal affairs and non-legal business are mixed;     ■  And whether identical or similar rights should be guaranteed for those performing roles similar to attorneys (e.g., patent attorneys).   1. Contents of the Korean-Style Discovery System     The amended Cooperation Act, dated February 19, 2026, explicitly codifies the Korean-style Discovery System for the first time. Its main contents are as follows:     1）Introduction of the Expert Fact-Finding System (Article 40-6, etc.)         A new system allows the court to appoint an expert to conduct fact-finding in damages lawsuits arising from the misappropriation of technical data 1 under the Cooperation Act.          If the court finds that:         ① There is a substantial probability that the opposing party committed misappropriation of technical data;         ② The burden on the opposing party is not excessive; and         ③ It is difficult for the applicant to collect evidence by other means,         the court may, upon application, designate an expert in the relevant field. The designated expert may then enter the opposing party's offices, factories, or other managed locations to question the opposing party and its employees, inspect or copy materials, and operate, measure, or test devices as necessary (Article 40-6).         Thus, while unlimited investigation is not permitted, the court can actively initiate investigation procedures if the requirements are met upon application.         Additionally, reflecting the newly introduced ACP system, the Cooperation Act allows parties to apply to exclude communications or documents/materials under Article 26-2 of the Attorney Act (hereinafter communications, etc.) from the scope of such investigations. However, if deemed necessary to confirm the existence of such excluded communications, the court may order the submission of a list of such materials upon application by the opposing party (Article 40-7).      2）Introduction of the Evidence Preservation Order System (Article 40-11, etc.)         To ensure the effectiveness of the expert fact-finding system, an Evidence Preservation Order System has been introduced.         Under the amendment, the court may issue a preservation order upon application not only when a lawsuit for damages regarding misappropriation of technical data has already been filed but also when such a lawsuit is reasonably expected to be filed, provided that:         ① Sufficient facts exist to identify the materials subject to the order; and         ② Failure to issue the order would likely cause irreparable damage to the applicant.         This measure effectively prevents the destruction or concealment of caserelated evidence. Regarding the preservation period, the court may order the preservation of materials for a term not exceeding one year, which may be extended by up to one year upon the application of a party. (Article 40-11, Paragraph 1). Furthermore, if a third party holds the materials, the court may order preservation conditional upon the applicant paying the necessary costs for the preservation (Article 40-11, Paragraph 5).         If the person possessing, managing, or storing the materials fails to comply with the order, the court may deem the applicant's claims regarding the facts intended to be proven by the materials as true (Article 40-11, Paragraph 6). Additionally, anyone who intentionally destroys or renders materials unusable in violation of an evidence preservation order may face imprisonment for up to 7 years or a fine of up to 100 million KRW (Article 41, Paragraph 4).         To prevent abuse of the preservation order system, if the applicant of the preservation order fails to file the main lawsuit within 7 days after the order is issued, the court must order the applicant to prove the filing of the complaint within a period of at least 2 weeks. Failure to submit such proof allows the court to cancel the order ex officio or upon the opposing party's application and assign the costs to the applicant (Article 40-11, Paragraphs 9 and 10).     3）Introduction of the Party Examination System (Article 40-12, etc.)         Upon application by either party, the court may decide to conduct mutual examinations of necessary persons (including the parties themselves) to verify facts or materials related to proving misappropriation of technical data or calculating damages. Such applications by the parties can only be made when attorneys are retained.         In making this decision, the court must consider:         ① Whether the number of examinees, scope, method, and location of the examination impose an excessive burden on the opposing party; and         ② Whether it is necessary for verifying materials/facts asserted by the parties or for preserving evidence (Article 40-12, Paragraph 1).         If an examination is conducted, both parties must audio or video record the testimony (Article 40-12, Paragraph 3). Considering the ACP introduced in the Attorney Act, a party may request the deletion of any testimony concerning ”communications, etc.“ included in the recordings (Article 40-12, Paragraph 9). Furthermore, if a party obstructs the examination process without just cause (e.g., failing to appear, refusing to take an oath or testify), the court may impose sanctions, such as deeming the opposing party's claims regarding the facts intended to be proven by the testimony as true (Article 40-12, Paragraph 11).      4）Supplementary Provisions         The amended Cooperation Act will take effect on February 20, 2028, two years after its promulgation. The delayed effective date aims to facilitate the uniform introduction of the discovery system across other laws such as the Patent Act, Utility Model Act, Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, Subcontracting Fairness Act, and Civil Procedure Act, as well as to allow time for building court information systems related to the discovery system. Consequently, with the enactment of this law, the discovery system is expected to expand beyond intellectual property fields, such as the Patent Act, to encompass civil litigation as a whole. 2. Implications     This amendment is hailed as a pivotal turning point, marking the first introduction of a Korean-Style Discovery System. As its application is expected to expand to other intellectual property laws and general civil litigation, it is projected to bring profound changes to legal practice alongside the Attorney-Client Privilege. While the Korean civil and commercial dispute framework has traditionally adhered to the principles of 'party submission of evidence' and the ‘plaintiff's exclusive burden of proof,’ the expansion of this discovery system is expected to weaken the principle of ’party submission of evidence’. Consequently, it will likely facilitate a shift toward a dispute resolution structure centered on substantive discovery and the rectification of information asymmetry. The Development and Current Status of the Doctrine of Equivalents in Korea   Since the Korean Supreme Court first recognized the doctrine of equivalents in 2000 (Supreme Court Decision No. 97Hu2200, rendered on July 28, 2000), it has progressively refined the doctrine through a series of subsequent decisions. This article surveys the development and current status of the doctrine of equivalents in Korea, focusing on the leading cases.     Supreme Court Decision No. 97Hu2200, rendered on July 28, 2000, involved a process for manufacturing an antimicrobial agent. In that case, the patented process and the defendant’s process shared the same starting material and final product. They differed, however, in that the patented process obtained the target substance by reacting the starting material with substance A, whereas the defendant’s process obtained the same target substance by reacting the starting material with substance B and then decomposing the resulting intermediate.  In that decision, the Supreme Court articulated a five-part test for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and found equivalence on the facts before it:     Each part of this test is discussed in turn below.     1. Meaning of the First Part     The first part of the five-part test asks whether the patented invention and the accused invention share the same technical idea, or more precisely, the same principle for solving the problem. Application of this part of the test necessarily raises the question of how the technical idea or problem-solving principle of the patented invention and that of the accused invention should be detemined. Some earlier decisions appeared to treat the “principle for solving the problem” as conceptually close to the invention’s technical objective and, at times, considered this part together with the second part of the test, namely substantial identity of function and effect.     In 2009, the Supreme Court explained that the first part of the test is satisfied where the substituted element in the accused invention pertains to a non-essential part of the patented invention, such that the accused invention retains the characteristic element of the patented invention (Supreme Court Decision No. 2007Hu3806, rendered on June 25, 2009).3 The Court further stated that, in identifying those characteristic features, a court should not merely extract claim elements in a formalistic manner, but should instead conduct a substantive inquiry, in light of the detailed description in the specification and the prior art existing at the time of filing, into the problem-solving principle underlying the distinctive solution adopted by the patented invention, as compared with the prior art. That decision was generally understood to mean that the first part of the five-part test turns on whether the accused invention contains the characteristic element of the patented invention.      In 2014, however, the Supreme Court reformulated the inquiry. It held that, in determining whether the first part of the test is satisfied, the court should not formally isolate certain claim elements, but should instead examine, in light of the detailed description and the prior art at the time of filing, what constitutes the “core of the technical idea” underlying the distinctive solution particular to the patented invention (Supreme Court Decision No.2013Da14361, rendered on July 24, 2014). This formulation suggests that the inquiry is not confined to whether the accused product or process incorporates the patented invention’s “characteristic element” as such, but rather whether it embodies the same core technical idea.     Because equivalence may therefore be found even where the accused invention does not include the patented invention’s characteristic elements, so long as it shares the same core technical idea, the 2014 decision is commonly understood as having broadened the scope of equivalence under Korean law. 2. Determining the Principle for Solving the Problem     Under the 2014 framework, a court must identify the core of the technical idea distinctive to the patented invention in order to apply the first part of the five-part test. The 2014 decision, however, offered only general guidance, requiring reference to the specification and prior art without prescribing a more concrete methodology.     The Supreme Court addressed this issue in its January 31, 2019 decision (Supreme Court Decision No. 2017Hu424, rendered on January 31, 2019. There, the Court held that the detailed description of the invention should serve as the principal basis for identifying the core of the technical idea and that courts should not redefine that core by resorting to alternative configurations not intended by the inventor. The Court explained that consideration of prior art is justified in order to assess objectively the substantive value of the patented invention and to determine how broadly or narrowly the problem-solving principle should be defined depending on the degree to which the invention contributed to technological progress.     At the same time, the Court cautioned that courts should not replace the core technical idea discernible from the detailed description with a different technical idea drawn from prior art not mentioned in the specification. The Court reasoned that such an approach could impose unforeseeable harm on third parties who relied on the specification and avoided using the technical idea actually disclosed there, only to be found later to have appropriated a judicially reconstructed “core” based on different prior art.     These decisions suggest that the Supreme Court seeks to anchor the first part of the five-part test in the technical idea disclosed in the detailed description, while preventing that core from shifting depending on the particular prior art references later introduced by the defendant.    The second part of the five-part test asks whether the substituted element in the accused invention achieves substantially the same function and effect as the corresponding element in the patented invention. The function and effect of a patented invention are closely related to the core of its technical idea, because that core necessarily encompasses the means by which the invention solves a technical problem and produces a technical result.  Consistent with this understanding, the Supreme Court has held that the question  whether the accused product or process achieves substantially the same function and effect should be assessed primarily by asking whether it solves the same technical problem that had remained unresolved in the prior art and was solved by the patented invention (Supreme Court Decision No. 2018Da267252, rendered on January 31, 2019). The Court further stated that, if the core of the technical idea underlying the distinctive solution particular to the patented invention, as identified in light of the detailed description and the prior art existing at the time of filing, is implemented in the accused product or process, then the second part of the test is satisfied. Accordingly, where the first part of the five-part test is satisfied, the second part will often be satisfied as well. That said, under Decision No. 2017Hu424, the core of the technical idea is identified primarily through the detailed description, and it remains possible that what the inventor regarded as the core technical idea was, in fact, already disclosed in prior art not cited in the specification. Recognizing this possibility, the Supreme Court held in Decision No. 2018Da267252, issued the same day, that where the supposed core technical idea was already publicly known at the time of filing, or was effectively no more than whatwas already known, it cannot be considered distinctive to the patented invention, nor can the invention be said to have solved a technical problem left unresolved by the prior art. In such cases, the Court explained, the second part of the five-part test cannot be resolved simply by asking whether that technical idea is embodied in the accused  product or process. Rather, the analysis must proceed by comparing the specific  functions or roles of the individual elements whose equivalence is at issue.    The third part of the five-part test asks whether the substitution would have been readily conceivable to a person having ordinary skill in the art. A key question is how this inquiry relates to the standard for inventive step. If the threshold under the third part were materially different from the inventive-step standard, there could be a grey area in which a variation is not patentably distinct from the patented invention, yet still falls outside the scope of equivalence. In that event, the variation would be neither patentable nor covered by the patented claim.  The Supreme Court has not articulated a definitive position on this relationship, and Korean case law is generally understood not to treat the third part of the five-part test as fully coextensive with inventive-step analysis. A separate issue concerns the relevant time for evaluating ease of substitution. If the scope of patent protection is determined with reference to the prior art as of the filing date, then, in principle, the third part of the test might also be expected to proceed as of that date. The Supreme Court, however, has taken a different view. Emphasizing that the doctrine of equivalents exists because there are inherent linguistic limitations in claim drafting, and that tolerating minor modifications designed to evade infringement would deprive patent rights of effective protection, the Court held that materials that became publicly available after the filing date but before the time of infringement may also be considered in determining whether the substitution was readily conceivable (Supreme Court Decision No. 2022Hu10210, rendered on February 2, 2023).    Even before formally adopting the doctrine of equivalents, the Korean Supreme Court had already established the principle that where the accused invention consists solely of publicly known technology, there is no proper basis for comparing it with the patented invention for purposes of identity or similarity. Accordingly, such an invention falls outside the scope of the patent right regardless of the scope of the claims or the degree of similarity between the two (Supreme Court Decision No. 96Hu1750, rendered on November 11, 1997). This principle was later incorporated into the five-part test as its fourth part. Korean law further developed this part of the test so that equivalence is denied not only where the defendant’s technology is identical to prior art, but also where it could readily have been derived from prior art (Supreme Court Decision No. 97Hu2200, rendered on July 28, 2000). This principle applies not only under the doctrine of equivalents but also in cases involving literal infringement (Supreme Court Decision No. 2002Da60610, rendered on September 23, 2004).   The fifth and final part of the five-part test concerns prosecution history estoppel. Under Korean law, where a particular element was intentionally excluded from the claims during prosecution, that element is treated as excluded from the scope of the patent right.     ■ Scope of Prosecution History Relevant to Estoppel         The Supreme Court recently clarified that the determination whether a particular element was intentionally excluded should not be made solely by comparing the original and amended claim language. Rather, the inquiry must take into account the prosecution history as a whole, including the examiner’s comments, as well as the applicant’s amendments, written arguments, stated reasons for amendment, and discernible intent (Supreme Court Decision No. 2022Hu10210, rendered on February 2, 2023). The Court further explained that the mere fact that the claims were narrowed during prosecution does not by itself mean that all configurations lying between the pre-amendment and post-amendment claim language were intentionally excluded. Such exclusion may be found only where, considering the various circumstances revealed in the prosecution history, including the reason for amendment, it can be concluded that the applicant intended to disclaim a particular configuration — for example, where the applicant narrowed the claims in order to avoid prior art cited in an office action and thereby excluded a configuration appearing in that prior art.          Thus, even where claim amendments were made, the Supreme Court does not apply estoppel mechanically. Instead, it adopts a flexible approach that considers the circumstances surrounding the amendment and the applicant’s intent as revealed through the prosecution history. Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes in Korea’s Biosimilar Era: Key Issues and Emerging Trends     Korean media outlets have reported a number of compound patents on global blockbuster drugs which are set to expire in Korea between 2025 and 2026, heralding what is being called a ”patent cliff.“ Notably, many of these blockbuster drugs are biologics. Given the accelerating entry of biosimilars into the Korean pharmaceutical market, patent disputes in the pharmaceutical sector are expected to increase significantly in the coming years.  In Korea, Samsung Bioepis and Celltrion have long led the biosimilar market, establishing robust product portfolios through aggressive development strategies. Recently however, major domestic pharmaceutical companies traditionally focused on chemical drugs and generics — such as Daewoong Pharmaceutical and Dong-A ST— are also stepping up their efforts to enter and expand biosimilar businesses. This shift may be a strategic move to diversify their revenue streams and strengthen global market presence, aligning with the growing international biosimilar market. Considering the large number of blockbuster biologic drugs facing expiry of compound patents and the expanding involvement of Korean pharmaceutical and biotech firms in the biosimilar industry, pharmaceutical patent disputes in Korea are expected to become more frequent and complex.  Last year, in our last IP Perspective (2025 3ʳᵈ Edition), Lee & Ko examined the latest legal trends concerning the boundary between research activities for clinical trials and patent infringement, focusing on the Korean Supreme Court’s decision in the Prevnar case, the so-called ”Bolar exception.“  Building on that discussion, this article aims to explore key legal and practical issues in Korea’s pharmaceutical patent disputes against the backdrop of compound patents expiring for blockbuster drugs and the intensifying competition in the biosimilar market.     Originators typically protect their pioneering pharmaceutical products by a layered portfolio of patents, including not only compound patents but also those covering medicinal uses, dosage regimens, formulations, and manufacturing methods. In therapeutic areas such as oncology and immunosuppression — where biologics are frequently used — drugs are often first approved for an initial indication, followed by the progressive development of additional indications, new dosage regimens, or combination therapies with other drugs, which collectively align with clinical trial pipelines.  In Korea, inventions relating to dosage and administration methods are treated as a form of medicinal use invention. Moreover, elements concerning dosage and administration are recognized as components of a pharmaceutical composition, meaning that inventions directed to the dosage and administration of a drug are formally categorized not as method inventions but as product inventions (Supreme Court Decision No. 2014Hu768, rendered on May 21, 2015; hereinafter, the 2015 Supreme Court Decision). Prior to the 2015 Supreme Court Decision, dosage-regimen elements such as administration schedule or dosing amount were not independently recognized as essential components of an invention. However, the 2015 Supreme Court Decision marked a turning point by holding that administration schedule and dosage can be considered integral elements of a patented invention. The Supreme Court reasoned that when administration methods (e.g., frequency) and dosage are specified in conjunction with a disease indication or therapeutic effect in a pharmaceutical invention, such administration and dosage parameters confer a new functional meaning to the pharmaceutical product. In substance, the Court viewed these features as essentially equivalent to a medicinal use indication.  However, medicinal use inventions are conceptually based on translating methodtype technical ideas into product claims. As such, the “use” component typically lacks physical embodiment. Moreover, since the time of use is often temporally distant from the time of manufacture, it is generally difficult to determine the specific intended use of a product — including administration method and dosage — at the time of its production, export, or other acts of commercial exploitation. For this reason, assessing patent infringement for medicinal use inventions based on the timing of product manufacturing can present significant challenges.   Furthermore, generic and biosimilar manufacturers often adopt “skinny label” strategy to circumvent later-issued use or dosage-regimen patents by excluding such patented indication or dosage regimen from their product label. Infringement determination becomes even more complex when generic and biosimilar manufacturers employ the skinny label strategy. In Korea, there are only a very limited number of lower-court rulings addressing infringement of medicinal use inventions, and they fall far short of forming a wellestablished legal framework. To date, there is no definitive Supreme Court precedent establishing a clear standard for infringement of use or dosageregimen patents. Given the anticipated increase in relevant disputes, case law development in this regard warrants close attention.  Going forward, in disputes involving use and dosage-regimen patents, all stakeholders will need to develop novel legal arguments and conduct in-depth assessments of fact-specific circumstances favorable to their positions. Formulating comprehensive and forward-thinking strategy in this regard – well before actual litigation – is especially critical for originator companies, for example when planning defense strategies in anticipation of biosimilar entry or even at the stage of designing patent portfolios.      Not only the types of patents subject to dispute but also the timing of when a dispute will arise and who will trigger the initiation of such dispute are of utmost importance when formulating response strategy. These factors influence not only when each party begins preparing for patent litigation but also may significantly shape the overall strategic direction. In Korea, since the implementation of the patent linkage system, the timeline for relevant event triggers and corresponding types of disputes have become somewhat standardized. Generic companies generally aim to enter the market as soon as it becomes legally possible because the generic company which obtains the first generic market approval can enjoy 9-month generic exclusivity. For this reason, they would proactively file negative scope confirmation actions or invalidation trials approximately one to one and a half years before submitting market approval application, which can be submitted immediately after the expiration of the original drug's data exclusivity period (previously called the post-market surveillance period). In this scenario, generic pharmaceutical companies would often utilize the negative scope confirmation action as a major pathway for resolving pharmaceutical patent disputes concerning patents with design-around strategies. Generic companies have favored this negative scope confirmation action strategy because its unique jurisprudence allowed the companies to seek the IPTAB’s confirmation of non-infringement for a product which ‘may be practiced in the future’, even if such product did not precisely match the product actually practiced by them.  However, we have observed in recent trial filing trends in Korea that in the case of biopharmaceuticals, negative scope confirmation actions are not utilized as actively as in the field of generic chemical drugs, most likely because the practical benefit of obtaining the first-approval marketing authorization under the patent linkage system is relatively smaller for biosimilars compared to chemical generics.  This phenomenon may stem from the following factors. First, in the case of generic chemical drugs, the bioequivalence test and approval review periods are relatively short and predictable, with multiple products often receiving approval around similar times.In contrast, biosimilars require a long time from clinical trials to approval review, and their predictability is low. Second, considering that the approval review takes in average more than one year, the benefit conferred from the ’first-mover advantage‘ achievable through a negative scope confirmation action and the 9-month generic exclusivity granted under the patent linkage system becomes somewhat moot. Third, since the number of competing biosimilars is small, the competition to secure such generic exclusivity under the patent linkage system is less intense, thereby reducing the incentive to file negative scope confirmation actions.  Consequently, biosimilar pharmaceutical companies often do not proactively file trials regarding patents for which they have implemented design-around strategies. In such cases, patent disputes typically commence only when the originator takes active enforcement measures by filing infringement lawsuits or requesting positive scope confirmation actions.  In summary, whereas originators used to primarily focus on formulating defense-oriented strategies to respond to proactive trial filings by generic companies, now they must actively consider when and on what cause of action the originators can take proactive enforcement measures before the biosimilar product enters full-scale production and sales. Subsequently, originators now need to deliberate on methods and strategies for collecting evidence to initiate such active enforcement measures more thoroughly than in the past. Overall, this shift demands new strategic considerations for originators.    Traditionally, main action (civil action) and preliminary injunctions have been the primary enforcement measures for patentees in Korea. However, the increasing number of cases before the courts has sometimes slowed down the enforcement progress, necessitating patentees to seek other more swift enforcement measures. Accordingly, patentees have been more attentive to two such measures: Korea Trade Commission (KTC) investigation and border enforcement through registration with the Korea Customs Service (KCS). KTC is a quasi‑judicial body that investigates unfair trade practices and determines whether an import or export at issue is causing injury to Korean industry. Similar to the ITC practice in the United States, a patentee may request KTC to investigate whether a certain import or export amounts to unfair trade practice. KTC investigation measure confers several meaningful benefits for patentees. Namely, once KTC commences investigation, it has authority to proactively conduct investigations on allegedly unfair practices, such as by inspecting alleged infringer’s premise. This may elicit evidence that may not otherwise be found in traditional enforcement measures. Furthermore, KTC investigation is fast paced. KTC is required by rule to make decision within 10 months at the latest. If KTC investigation finds that an import/export at issue amounts to unfair trade practice, KTC has authority to impose administrative fines, suspend import/export activities, and confiscate the infringing goods.  While KTC investigation is closely connected with KCS, a patentee may also independently register its patent with KCS for border enforcement purposes. By registering a patent with the KCS, a patentee can request customs authorities to monitor the import and export of goods suspected of infringing the registered patent. Once a patent is registered, if customs officials identify potentially infringing goods during the clearance process, they are required to notify the patent registrant. The registrant may then, upon posting a bond, request suspension of customs clearance for the suspected goods.  Patent registration with KCS serves as a proactive measure, allowing patentees to prevent potentially infringing products from entering the Korean market before they reach domestic distribution channels. On the other hand, KTC investigation may provide an early result useful for a patentee to enforce its patents and protect its proprietary interest.  Given the increasing movement of biopharmaceutical and biosimilar products through global supply chains, KTC investigation and patent registration with the KCS are now meaningful supplementary enforcement options for patentees. This border control mechanism deserves attention as part of a comprehensive IP enforcement strategy in Korea.  Recent Supreme Court Ruling on Reforming Luxury Bags The Supreme Court recently issued its first ruling on whether the act of ”reforming“ (remodeling) famous branded products by disassembling them to create new products constitutes trademark infringement (Supreme Court Decision No. 2024Da 311181, rendered on February 26, 2026). While both the first and second instance courts ruled that such “reforming” acts constituted trademark infringement (Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2022Gahap513476, rendered on October 12, 2023 6; IP High Court Decision No. 2023Na11283, rendered on October 28, 2024), the Supreme Court diverged from this view, holding that the act of reforming for personal use does not, in principle, constitute trademark infringement.      The defendant, a reforming business operator, from 2017 to 2021, reformed genuine bags provided by owners of Louis Vuitton (hereinafter Plaintiff) bags into different forms of bags or wallets and returned these reformed products to the original owners. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2022 against the defendant, seeking an injunction against trademark infringement and damages. The main issues in this judgment were:  ➀ Whether the defendant's reforming acts constituted ”use of a trademark“ under the Trademark Act; and ➁ Whether the Plaintiff's trademark rights had been exhausted. 1. Whether it Constitutes “Use of a Trademark” under the Trademark Act     Under the Trademark Act, “use of a trademark” refers to the act of using a trademark as an indication of source on goods, i.e., items offered in commerce (Article 2, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 11 of the Trademark Act).     The courts of first and second instance held that the reformed products constitute ’goods‘ insofar as they possess exchange value, even if they were not actually distributed in the market. The courts ruled that trademark use was established because the defendant used fabric bearing the plaintiff's registered trademark, thereby creating the appearance that the plaintiff was the source of the reformed products. Specifically, the act of manufacturing reformed products using such fabric and returning them to the owners was deemed to constitute both the ’act of displaying a trademark on goods‘ under Article 2(1)11(a) of the Trademark Act and the ‘delivering goods’ under subparagraph (b) of the same Article.      In contrast, the Supreme Court held that displaying a trademark on an item used strictly for personal purposes and not offered for commercial transactions does not constitute ‘use of a trademark’ under the Trademark Act. Consequently, trademark infringement — which presupposes the actual use of a trademark — cannot be established in such circumstances.     Accordingly, the Court ruled that when an owner of a registered trademark product engages in reforming, displaying the trademark on the reformed product does not constitute ”use of a trademark“ as long as the product is not distributed in the marketplace and is used solely for personal purposes.      In this regard, the Court held that since the owner's act of reforming a product for personal use is permitted, there is no need to restrict such permission only to cases where the owner performs the reformation personally. The court found no legal basis to distinguish between an owner's self-reformation and the entrustment of such an act to a third party.     Therefore, even if a professional reformer's activities constitute a business operation, such acts are performed at the owner's request as an exercise of their ownership rights, and the resulting product is intended solely for the owner's private use. Consequently, the Court ruled that, in principle, a reformer's act of displaying a trademark on a reformed product does not constitute ’use of a trademark‘.      However, even if a reformer ostensibly provides services for an owner’s personal use, such acts may constitute ’use of a trademark‘ and thus amount to trademark infringement if ’special circumstances’ exist — specifically, where the reformer effectively controls and leads the entire process to produce and sell reformed goods as their own products within the stream of commerce. The Court held that the existence of such special circumstances must be determined by comprehensively considering various factors, including the background and details of the request, the primary decision-maker regarding the product’s purpose and form, the nature of the compensation received, the source and proportion of materials used, and the ownership of the final product. The burden of proof for these special circumstances rests with the trademark owner asserting the infringement.      Furthermore, the Court ruled that a reformer may bear joint legal liability for infringement if it provided services despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the owner requested the reformation for commercial distribution rather than personal use. 2. Whether the Plaintiff's Trademark Rights Were Exhausted     The doctrine of trademark exhaustion refers to the principle that once a product bearing a registered trademark has been lawfully sold, the trademark owner can no longer assert their rights regarding its subsequent distribution. Accordingly, under this principle, the purchaser — the owner of the goods — is free to use, profit from, or dispose of the product, and such exercise of ownership rights generally includes the act of reforming the product.      However, according to established judicial precedents, the doctrine of exhaustion does not apply if the degree of reformation is so significant that it impairs the identity of the original product, effectively amounting to the production of a new product. In such cases, trademark infringement may still be an issue (Supreme Court Decision No. 2002Do3445, rendered on April 11, 20037). Following this logic, the courts of first and second instance in the present case found that the defendant's reformation went beyond mere repair and impaired the product’s original identity, meaning the plaintiff’s trademark rights were not exhausted.       Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that even when the act could be evaluated as producing a substantially new product, as long as the reformed product is used solely for personal purposes and is not offered for commercial transactions in the marketplace, the act of displaying the trademark during the reformation process does not constitute ‘use of a trademark’ under the Trademark Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that trademark infringement could not be established.    This case is the first case that established the legal doctrine regarding whether a reformer’s activities constitute trademark infringement. The Supreme Court’s decision is highly meaningful because it declares for the first time that, in principle, a reformer’s acts performed for an owner’s personal use do not constitute trademark infringement, while simultaneously providing for an exception where infringement may be established under special circumstances. Furthermore, the Court has set forth specific criteria for determining the existence of such special circumstances, offering clear guidance for future cases.   

Following the passage of amendments to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) by the National Assembly on February 12, 2026, the National Assembly also approved amendments to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Network Act) on March 12, 2026. In recent months, cybersecurity incidents—or suspected incidents—affecting major telecommunications carriers and financial institutions have underscored the need to strengthen information security management and incident response frameworks. Against this backdrop, multiple amendment bills were proposed, and a consolidated bill prepared by the National Assembly's Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee has now been enacted. The amendments focus on enhancing incident prevention and response mechanisms, strengthening corporate information security governance, and tightening regulation of illegal spam. Key measures—including the expansion of the Chief Information Security Officer's (CISO) role, mandatory establishment of information security committees, introduction of information security level assessments, enhanced certification standards for high-risk entities, and the implementation of incident response manuals and enforcement mechanisms—are expected to have a meaningful impact on corporate information security practices. The amended Network Act will generally take effect six months after promulgation, except for provisions relating to the information security level assessment system, which will take effect one year after promulgation. This newsletter outlines the key amendments and their practical implications. 1. Key Amendments     1) Strengthening Information Security Governance         The amendments enhance corporate governance frameworks to promote more structured and effective information security management.         In particular, major information and communications service providers are now required to endeavor to secure personnel with relevant expertise and sufficient budget for information security (Article 45(5)).         In addition, service providers (other than small and medium-sized enterprises) must designate an executive officer as the CISO. The CISO's responsibilities have been expanded to include (i) oversight of personnel and budgeting for information security, and (ii) reporting on information security status and key matters to the board of directors (Article 45-3).         Further, certain service providers meeting prescribed thresholds must establish and operate an information security committee to deliberate on information security matters, with the CISO serving as chair (Article 45-4).         The Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) is also authorized to conduct annual information security level assessments for designated entities and to disclose the results or issue recommendations for improvement (Article 45-5).     2) Enhancements to the Information Security Management System (ISMS) Certification Regime         Building on the comprehensive reform plan announced on December 6, 2025 to enhance the effectiveness of ISMS and ISMS-P certifications, the amended Network Act further strengthens the ISMS certification framework.         Under the amendments, entities that process large volumes of data or whose services have significant societal impact may be subject to enhanced certification standards and procedures (Article 47-7(2)). In addition, ISMS certification may be revoked in cases of material violations of applicable information security laws (Article 47(10)(4)).     3) Strengthening Incident Response and Investigation Frameworks         The amendments refine reporting, notification, and analysis requirements to enable more prompt and systematic responses to cybersecurity incidents.         Service providers are now required to report incidents—including the timing and response status—within 24 hours of becoming aware of the incident (Article 48-3(1)).         Where certain incidents prescribed by Presidential Decree occur, service providers must promptly notify affected users (Article 48-3(4)).         The scope of incident analysis has been expanded from focusing solely on the "cause" to covering both the "occurrence and cause" of incidents (Article 48-4).         An Incident Investigation Review Committee will be established under the MSIT to deliberate on matters such as the need for investigation and the formation of joint public-private investigation teams (Article 48-2(7)).         In addition, designated entities operating information and communications networks must prepare and submit incident response manuals tailored to the scale and nature of their services, in accordance with standard guidelines issued by the Ministry. The Ministry is also authorized to review the implementation of such manuals (Article 48-9).     4) Introduction of Sanctions and User Protection Measures         To strengthen accountability, the amendments introduce new enforcement tools in relation to cybersecurity incidents.         Penalty surcharges may be imposed for failure to comply with corrective orders, refusal to submit materials, or obstruction of investigations (Article 48-7).         Further, where incidents occur repeatedly (two or more times within five years) due to willful misconduct or gross negligence, administrative fines of up to 3% of relevant revenue may be imposed (Article 48-8), subject to certain exceptions under the PIPA.         The amendments also introduce user protection provisions requiring service providers to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of harm and to facilitate prompt remedies, and to report such measures to the Ministry (Article 48-10).     5) Strengthening Regulation of Illegal Spam         The amendments also tighten regulation of illegal spam, particularly in relation to bulk messaging services.         Where a party outsources the transmission of commercial advertising messages, such outsourcing must be made only to entities certified under the Telecommunications Business Act (Article 50-3).         Where a service is used for unlawful transmission of advertising messages, the service provider must take prescribed measures, including (i) immediate suspension of such transmissions, (ii) denial of service or termination of contracts, (iii) inspection and remediation of security vulnerabilities, (iv) improvement of terms of service, and (v) implementation of recurrence prevention measures (Article 50-4(4)).         In addition, violations of advertising message transmission regulations may result in administrative fines of up to 6% of related revenue, significantly strengthening enforcement. 2. Key Implications     1) Need to Strengthen Information Security Governance         As with the recent amendments to the PIPA, the amended Network Act places significant emphasis on strengthening corporate information security governance. Companies should therefore review and enhance their internal governance structures, including the expanded role of the CISO, the requirement to establish information security committees, and the introduction of information security level assessments.         In addition, as enhanced ISMS certification standards may apply to high-risk entities, such companies should proactively upgrade their security management systems. Given that certification may be revoked in cases of material legal violations, ongoing compliance and post-certification management will also become increasingly important.     2) Need to Review Incident Response Processes and Internal Policies         The amendments introduce significant changes to incident response and investigation frameworks, including new user notification obligations and the establishment of the Incident Investigation Review Committee. Companies should comprehensively review their existing incident response processes in light of the expanded scope of investigation and analysis and the introduction of mandatory incident response manuals.         In particular, incident response manuals, reporting timelines, and notification procedures will play a critical role in practice. Companies are therefore advised to update relevant internal policies and systems in advance of the amendments taking effect.         Moreover, given that repeated incidents caused by willful misconduct or gross negligence may result in administrative fines of up to 3% of revenue, post-incident remediation measures, security investments, and internal controls are likely to be key factors in determining enforcement outcomes.     3) Need to Strengthen Spam Compliance         With the introduction of administrative fines of up to 6% of relevant revenue for violations relating to advertising messages, the importance of internal controls and compliance frameworks in this area will increase significantly.         In addition, as outsourcing of advertising message transmission is restricted to certified entities, companies utilizing messaging services should review their vendor selection processes and contractual arrangements accordingly. Lee & Ko's Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Group comprises more than 50 professionals, including specialized privacy lawyers, former regulators, and security technology experts, and maintains close collaboration with external IT and security specialists. The group provides comprehensive, one-stop advisory services across all areas of data protection and information security, including governance design, incident response, and ISMS/ISMS-P certification support. If you require advice in relation to the amended Network Act or other data protection and cybersecurity matters, please feel free to contact Lee & Ko's Data Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice Group.

On 29 January 2026, the Korean National Assembly passed amendments to the Attorney-at-Law Act that formally recognize attorney-client privilege, or ACP, as a statutory right. The reform grants attorneys and clients the right to withhold confidential legal communications, and certain related materials, from disclosure to third parties. The new regime is expected to have meaningful implications for tax audits, investigations, and administrative and judicial appeals, particularly by strengthening resistance to overly broad collection efforts and limiting downstream reliance on privileged materials. The amendment was promulgated on 19 February 2026 and is scheduled to take effect one year after promulgation. The addendum also suggests that the new ACP provision can apply to communications or materials created prior to the effective date, raising the possibility of its retroactive application. 1. Prior Legal Landscape     Historically, Korean law imposed on attorneys a duty of confidentiality concerning client communications. That duty, however, did not operate as a procedural shield in the way privilege does in many jurisdictions. While attorneys argued that legal advice should be immune from seizure under the constitutional right to counsel, the lack of a formal statute meant that the protection was inconsistent and determined only on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, taxpayers effectively had no legal grounds to refuse document disclosure during tax audits, and confidential communications were routinely seized in enforcement actions.     This legal landscape began to shift as the judiciary recognized the constitutional necessity of protecting attorney-client communications. Notably, Lee & Ko secured the first Supreme Court decision (Supreme Court Decision 2024-Mo-730, dated February 20, 2026) recognizing the illegality of seizing legal advice and communications between an attorney and a client. The lower court's ruling in this case (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2023-Bo-4, dated February 23, 2024) was incorporated into the "Statement of Reasons" for the newly passed amendment, serving as a significant judicial catalyst for the legislative reform.     The newly enacted law addresses this previous gap by transforming from an ethical confidential obligation framework to an enforceable right against third-party disclosure. 2. Key Provisions and Our Interpretation     The amended law adds a new Article 26-2 following the existing confidentiality provision in Article 26. The new article grants attorneys and their clients, including prospective clients, two core rights:     1) A non-disclosure right over attorney-client communications exchanged for purposes of providing or receiving legal services, and     2) A non-disclosure right over documents and materials (including electronic records) prepared in connection with litigation, investigations (audits), or other inquiries relating to matters for which counsel was engaged.     Unlike the work-product doctrine recognized in other jurisdictions in the context of discovery, which extends not only to attorneys but also to documents or materials prepared in anticipation of litigation by other representatives or advisors, the newly enacted ACP law in Korea limits this protection to documents or materials prepared by attorneys. In this respect, the newly enacted ACP provision may be viewed as placing particular emphasis on protecting the client's right to receive legal assistance from counsel. 3. Exceptions to the ACP     The statute provides that ACP will be waived or not apply in certain circumstances, including:     ■ where the client expressly consents,     ■ where substantial public interest concerns override confidentiality (for example, if legal advice is used to facilitate unlawful conduct, or counsel is involved in illegal activity),     ■ where disclosure is necessary for counsel to assert or defend rights in a dispute with the client, or     ■ where another statute expressly provides otherwise. 4. Implications for Tax Audits and Appeals in Korea     The codification of ACP is poised to materially affect Korean tax enforcement practice.     Historically, during tax audits and dawn raids in Korea, authorities routinely collected emails, internal memoranda, and external legal opinions without meaningful limitation. These materials were frequently incorporated into assessment notices and later relied upon in administrative and judicial proceedings.     In practice, Korean tax authorities conducting special tax audits have also exercised the power to temporarily seize books and records from the taxpayer's premises. Although such temporary seizure (so-called "deposit" or provisional custody of documents) formally requires the taxpayer's consent under Korean tax audit procedures, refusal in practice often results in a markedly more adversarial and pressured audit environment. As a result, taxpayers frequently feel compelled to provide consent, effectively under practical duress, for lack of a viable alternative. In this environment, tax authorities have historically obtained broad access to documentary materials, including internal communications and legal analyses.     Under the new regime, however, taxpayers may be positioned to assert privilege objections against the seizure or compelled production of protected materials. Under circumstances where tax authorities seek access to legal communications during on-site inspections or document seizures, the codification of ACP may therefore serve as an important procedural safeguard for taxpayers' rights, particularly in the context of intrusive special audits.     Although the Korean statutory framework does not yet provide explicit procedural mechanisms comparable to those developed in other jurisdictions, the amended law may function in a manner broadly analogous to privilege logs and claw-back procedures in U.S. discovery, allowing taxpayers to identify and withhold privileged materials or to seek the return of privileged documents that were inadvertently obtained by the authorities. 5. Unanswered Questions     Despite its structural significance, the amended law leaves several operational issues unresolved.     The statute does not provide detailed guidance regarding the scope of protected materials, the procedural mechanisms for asserting ACP during audits or investigations, or the remedies available in the event of a violation. In particular, it remains unclear what formal steps taxpayers and counsel must take to ensure that documents are recognized and treated as privileged.     For example, the amended law does not specify:     ■ whether documents must be expressly labeled or marked as "privileged" or "confidential" to qualify for protection;     ■ whether a privilege log or similar disclosure protocol will be required when resisting production;     ■ whether authorities must segregate or seal potentially privileged materials during searches or electronic data imaging; and     ■ whether an independent review mechanism, such as judicial or in camera inspection, will be available to resolve privilege disputes before enforcement measures are imposed.     From a more practical perspective, during a tax audit in Korea, authorities typically mass-collect virtually all text-based documents—such as emails and memoranda—based on file extensions. That is, rather than assessing the relevance of individual files before copying, they systematically collect all files matching certain extensions (e.g., .doc, .pdf, or .xls) regardless of content. This blanket data collection approach raises a significant practical challenge: how to prevent documents protected under ACP from being collected in the first place.     At present, as detailed implementing regulations or guidelines have not yet been released, it would be advisable to (i) clearly indicate on communications with attorneys and documents prepared by attorneys that they are protected under ACP, for example by marking them with the phrase "Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege," (ii) manage such materials separately from other documents so that, in the event of a tax audit, it can be clearly asserted that they should not be copied or collected, and (iii) ensure that legal counsel is present during the tax audit to prevent officials from photocopying or otherwise collecting such materials.     Accordingly, practitioners and taxpayers should expect further legislative refinement and judicial interpretation to clarify the privilege's practical boundaries. 6. Concluding Assessment     The statutory recognition of ACP marks a significant evolution in Korean procedural law. By affording enforceable protection to confidential legal communications and litigation-related materials, the newly enacted law strengthens taxpayers' defense rights and enhances procedural fairness in investigative and judicial contexts.     Functionally, the reform aligns Korea more closely with common law jurisdictions, particularly the United States, where ACP and the work-product doctrine form the backbone of adversarial litigation strategy.     The ultimate scope and strength of the Korean ACP regime, however, will depend on how courts interpret its boundaries and how enforcement authorities adapt their investigative practices in response. The Tax Group at Lee & Ko possesses extensive experience and expertise in both domestic and international tax matters. Please feel free to contact us should you require assistance with any tax-related matters, including those discussed in this newsletter.  

The amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act (the Amended PIPA) was passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly on February 12, 2026. Following a recent series of large-scale data breach incidents (i.e., incidents involving the loss, theft, or unauthorized disclosure of personal information) involving major telecommunications companies, financial institutions, and platform operators, public demand has grown for stronger preventive measures and enhanced corporate accountability. While this amendment is widely known for introducing administrative penalties of up to 10% of revenue for violations of the PIPA, including data breaches, its significance extends further in that it calls for substantial changes to corporate data protection governance frameworks and security incident response systems. In this newsletter, we review the specific details of the Amended PIPA and highlight its key implications. 1. Key Amendments     A. Increased cap on administrative penalties for repeated or serious personal information infringements and specification of data protection investments as grounds for mitigation         Administrative penalties may now be imposed at up to 10% of a data handler (a concept analogous to a data controller under the GDPR)'s total revenue (excluding any amounts unrelated to the violation at issue)—or up to KRW 5 billion if there is no revenue or if calculating revenue is difficult, as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree (a proposed amendment to which is expected to be publicly notified)—in the following circumstances (Article 64-2(2)):         (i) if a violation constituting grounds for an administrative penalty is committed within three (3) years from the date of receiving a previous administrative penalty, with intent or gross negligence;         (ii) if a violation constituting grounds for an administrative penalty is committed with intent or gross negligence, and the number of affected data subjects is 10 million or more; or         (iii) where a data breach occurs as a result of failure to comply with a corrective order.         Conversely, the Amended PIPA requires the reduction of administrative penalties if grounds prescribed by the Enforcement Decree are met, such as the investment in and operation of data protection budgets, personnel, facilities, and equipment (excluding cases where the violation was committed with intent or gross negligence) (Article 64-2(6)).     B. Expansion of the concept of data breach and obligations related to data breach notification         The scope of "data breach" under the PIPA has been expanded beyond the current statutory categories of "loss, theft, or unauthorized disclosure" of personal information to additionally include "forgery, alteration, or damage" (Articles 23(2) and 34(1)).         The PIPA requires that certain information be notified to the affected data subjects in the event of a data breach. Under the Amended PIPA, the scope of required notification items has been expanded to include the following (Article 34(1)(6)):         (i) information regarding the data subject's legal rights and methods of exercising such rights, including claims for compensatory and statutory damages arising from the data breach or similar incident and dispute resolution procedures; and         (ii) other matters prescribed by the Enforcement Decree.         In addition, even prior to confirmation of a data breach, where a data handler becomes aware of the possibility of a data breach as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree—taking into account the type of personal information involved, the impact on data subjects, and the level of risk—the data handler is now required to notify, without delay, all potentially affected data subjects of such possibility, including information necessary to minimize potential damages and other matters to be prescribed by the Enforcement Decree (Article 34(2)).     C. Mandatory ISMS-P certification for data handlers above a certain scale         The PIPA provides that the Personal Information Protection Committee may certify the level of personal data protection of a data handler. Data handlers may apply for such certification—i.e., Personal Information & Information Security Management System (ISMS-P) certification—and, under the current PIPA, obtaining ISMS-P certification is voluntary. Under the Amended PIPA, however, data handlers that meet certain criteria prescribed by the Enforcement Decree—based on factors such as annual revenue and the scale of personal information processed—will be required to obtain ISMS-P certification (Article 32-2(1), proviso).     D. Clarification of the representative's responsibility and strengthening of the CPO's role         The Amended PIPA expressly provides that the representative (e.g., CEO) or business owner bears ultimate responsibility for the secure processing of personal information and the protection of data subjects' rights, and must effectively implement comprehensive management measures, including the allocation of qualified personnel and sufficient budgetary support (Article 30-3).         In addition, the statutory duties of the Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) have been expanded to include (Article 31(4)(2) and (3)):         (i) managing qualified personnel and securing the budget necessary for the protection of personal information; and         (ii) reporting to the representative and the board of directors on the status of personal information protection and other related matters of importance.         Furthermore, for data handlers meeting criteria prescribed by the Enforcement Decree—based on factors such as annual revenue and volume of personal information processed—are now subject to obligations to (Article 31(3)):         (i) obtain board approval when appointing, changing, or dismissing the CPO; and         (ii) report matters concerning the appointment, change, or dismissal of the CPO to the Personal Information Protection Commission in accordance with the Enforcement Decree.     E. Effective Date         The Amended PIPA will enter into force six (6) months after the date of its promulgation; provided, however, that the provisions mandating ISMS-P certification will take effect on July 1, 2027 (Addendum, Article 1). 2. Implications     A. Increased importance of establishing robust data protection governance and investment         The Amended PIPA introduces punitive administrative penalties, thereby significantly increasing the level of sanctions for data breaches and other infringements. At the same time, it strengthens not only the duties and role of the CPO but also the responsibilities of the representative and the board regarding data protection, while incentivizing corporate investment in data protection by providing additional grounds for mitigation of administrative penalties. Accordingly, before the Amended PIPA takes effect, businesses should establish or refine governance structures to ensure the effective implementation of data protection measures and proactively invest in adequate personnel, systems, and infrastructure. Regarding specific compliance measures, it will also be important to closely monitor how the provisions of the Amended PIPA are further specified through the forthcoming amendment to the Enforcement Decree.         In this context, the presence or absence of intent or gross negligence on the part of a data handler will serve as a key factor in determining the amount of an administrative penalty.         However, as the responsibilities of the representative and other directors with respect to data protection have now been expressly articulated—and as they are expected to participate in related decision-making—the propriety of the board's conduct, in addition to that of the CPO and personnel directly handling personal information, may also be considered in assessing intent or gross negligence. Therefore, guidance from legal experts may be necessary from the very beginning—such as when preparing guidelines for board reporting matters—to ensure compliance and mitigate potential liability risks.         In addition, with respect to ISMS-P certification, businesses should note that the certification review process is expected to become more rigorous, and that the Personal Information Protection Commission has indicated that it will actively revoke certifications in light of the seriousness of violations.     B. Need to strengthen monitoring systems and revise incident response processes         The scope of incidents subject to data breach notifications and the required notification items have been broadened, and notably, the notification obligation now extends to circumstances where only the possibility of a data breach or similar incident has been identified, even if no actual breach has been confirmed. Companies should therefore review and update their existing incident response processes. In particular, it has become increasingly important to enhance monitoring at pre-breach stages (e.g., upon detection of a security incident) and to establish corresponding response mechanisms at an earlier stage.         As these changes may necessitate amendments to internal regulations or policies, as well as adjustments to the roles of relevant departments, companies should begin preparations well in advance of the Amended PIPA's effective date. Lee & Ko's Data Privacy & Cybersecurity (DPC) Practice Group comprises more than 50 professionals—including dedicated privacy attorneys, former regulatory officials, and information security and technology experts—and maintains close collaborative relationships with external IT and cybersecurity specialists. Through this integrated network, we provide fast and accurate one-stop advisory services across the full spectrum of data protection and information security matters, including the establishment of information security governance frameworks, incident response relating to data breaches and similar leakage/infringement incidents, and assistance with ISMS and ISMS-P certification. Should you require advice regarding the Amended PIPA or any other data protection or information security matters, please do not hesitate to contact Lee & Ko's DPC Practice Group.  

In December 2025, the National Assembly enacted tax law amendments that had previously been proposed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MOEF). These included amendments to the Corporate Income Tax Law (CITL), Individual Income Tax Law (IITL), International Tax Coordination Law (ITCL) and Restriction of Special Taxation Law (RSTL), National Tax Basic Law (NTBL), among others. On January 16, 2026, the MOEF published proposed amendments to the Presidential Decrees(1) to the tax law, including the Presidential Decrees to the CITL (CITL-PD), IITL (IITL-PD), ITCL (ITCL-PD) and RSTL (RSTL-PD) and NTBL (NTBL-PD), among others. Presidential Decrees are regulations published by the MOEF to elaborate details or specify matters prescribed in the tax law. Unlike tax law amendments, the amendment to the Presidential Decree were promulgated and entered into force in February 27, 2026, following the public notice and comment period, January 19 to February 5, 2026, and the completion of deliberations at the Vice Ministers’ Meeting and the State Council. The key items of this reform package relating to international taxation and cross-border investments are summarized below. Unless otherwise stated, all changes are effective as of the date of promulgation by the MOEF 1. Improvement to the Application Method for Foreign Tax Credits on Indirect Investments     ① Revised Method for Individual Investors (2)         For individual investors that are subject to comprehensive taxation, the IITL amendments introduce a new method for applying for foreign tax credits in respect of indirect investments (e.g. investments through a fund). Previously, if an individual earned foreign income indirectly, their foreign tax credit was calculated using a formula based on their Korean tax rate. This often limited the credit.         But under the new rule prescribed in the IITL amendments, the foreign tax credit is based on the actual foreign tax already paid or withheld, adjusted using specific adjustment factors. (3)     ② Rationalization of the Foreign Tax Credit Mechanism for Corporate Investors (4)         Previously, under the CITL, indirect foreign income taxes were not included in the company’s taxable income or in the foreign tax credit limit calculation. Because of this, a Korean company effectively could not fully claim credit for those foreign income taxes. Specifically, the limitation was calculated as: [Korean corporate income tax liability x (Total income received from funds / taxable base)]. Because indirect foreign income taxes were not included in either the taxable base or the limitation formula, they were not appropriately reflected in determining the allowable credit.         To address this structural issue, the CITL amendments introduced a new provision(5) requiring that indirect foreign income taxes eligible for credit be included in gross income and, consequently, reflected in the taxable base. In addition, the foreign tax credit limitation formula has been amended(6) as follows: [Korean corporate income tax liability x (Total income received from funds + Indirect foreign income tax) ÷ Taxable base)]. This amendment ensures that indirect foreign income taxes are appropriately taken into account in calculating the foreign tax credit limitation. 2. Introduction of a Penalty for Failure to Submit Foreign Company’s Liaison Office Status Report (7)     The obligation for foreign companies to submit an annual information report regarding the status of their liaison offices was introduced in 2022.(8) However, the absence of specific sanctions for non-compliance has limited the effectiveness of the regime, as instances of non-compliance have been frequent.     The CITL amendments contain a new provision to strengthen enforcement,(9) whereby the tax authority may issue a corrective order to a foreign company that fails to submit a liaison office status report with the requisite details, or that submits false information. Non-compliance with such an order can result in an administrative penalty of up to KRW 10 million. 3. Expansion of the Tax Base and Refinement of the Exit Tax Regime (10)     Under the IITL, exit tax(11) is a deemed capital gains tax on certain Korean company shares held by a Korean resident at the time of his/her permanent departure, when the individual ceases to be a Korean tax resident and satisfied specified requirements.     In light of the increasing volume of overseas equity investments by Korean residents, the scope of the exit tax was broadened to include foreign company shares under IITL amendment. The detailed taxation requirements and scope of applicable foreign shares have been delegated to the IITL-PD.     Specifically, the amended IITL-PD(12) provides that the following foreign company shares shall be excluded from exit tax regime: 1) foreign shares held by the departing resident where the total value does not exceed KRW 500 million at the time of departure; 2) foreign shares held by a foreign national working in Korea, provided that the foreign national was physically present and working in Korea for at least 80% of the worker’s Korean residence period during the ten years preceding the date of departure; and 3) foreign shares acquired by the foreign national’s spouse and under-age children prior to the commencement of the foreign national’s period of working in Korea. Items (2) and (3) apply only where the foreign national departs Korea within six months from the termination date of his or her employment in Korea).     The IITL-PD amendments(13) also further clarify the method for determining the deemed transfer value of foreign company shares subject to exit tax regime: 1) the listed shares are valued at the legally prescribed benchmark value per IITL; and 2) unlisted shares are valued based on a weighted average of the net profit value (3) and net asset value (2) per share.(14)     These amendments will apply to individuals departing Korea on or after January 1, 2027. 4. Enhancements to the Global Minimum Tax Regime and Introduction of the Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (“DMTT”)     In response to the OECD Pillar Two framework, Korea introduced the Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) and the Under-taxed Payments Rule (UTPR) through earlier amendments to the ITCL promulgated on December 31, 2022. The IIR has applied from January 1, 2024; and the UTPR has applied from January 1, 2025.     In the 2025 ITCL amendments, the DMTT was also introduced.(15) In parallel, the Presidential Decree Amendments to the ITCL further refine and align Korea’s global minimum tax framework. In particular: (i) the domestic rules have been aligned with the OECD Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) Model Rules and accompanying Commentary; (ii) the deadline for applying the transitional Country-by-Country Reporting (CbCR) safe harbor was extended, reflecting the OECD administrative guidance (until January 5, 2026); and (iii) detailed calculation methods and procedural requirements for the implementation of the DMTT have been set out. A detailed summary of the relevant amendments are as follows.     A. Complementing the Global Minimum Tax Framework(16)         The ITCL-PD has been amended to align more closely with the GloBE Model Rules and accompanying Commentary. The key amendments are summarized below:         1) Amendment to Art. 101 of the ITCL-PD clarifies the method for determining whether the consolidated revenue threshold is met after a merger. Where a standalone company merges with a corporate group, the company’s turnover must be aggregated with the group’s consolidated revenue for the purposes of assessing the threshold.         2) Amendments to Arts. 111(1) and (2) of ITCL-PD expand the scope of allocation of top-up tax to include entities that are not Constituent Entities (CEs) of the multinational enterprise (MNE) group but are nonetheless subject to the adjusted covered taxes.         3) Amendment to Art. 111(1)(3) of ITCL-PD clarifies that, where the jurisdiction of establishment does not operate a corporate income tax system, hybrid entity rules also apply to entities that are not treated as taxable entities under Art. 108(2) of ITCL-PD.         4) New provisions in Arts. 111(3) and (4) of ITCL-PD introduce a method for allocating accounting deferred tax expenses of a CE for the purposes of calculating adjusted covered taxes. The rules clarify how deferred tax expenses may be allocated or excluded in determining adjusted covered taxes.         5) Amendment to Art. 119 of ITCL-PD amends the terminology used in calculating the current additional top-up tax under Art. 40(4) of the ITCL. The previous references to “estimated adjusted covered tax” and “adjusted covered tax” are replaced with “estimated aggregate amount of adjusted covered taxes” and “aggregate amount of adjusted covered tax” to ensure greater clarity and consistency.         6) Amendment to Art. 125-2 of ITCL-PD clarifies the statutory allocation method among domestic CEs in respect of top-up tax allocated under the UTPR, specifying the allocation ratio by reference to the location of the ultimate parent entity (UPE).         7) Amendment to Art. 133(1) of ITCL-PD refines the terminology applicable to deductions from GloBE income where the UPE is a flow-through entity. The phrase “tax resident in the UPE’s jurisdiction” is replaced with “established and operated in the UPE’s jurisdiction” to better reflect the legal status of such entities.         8) Amendment to Art. 139 of ITCL-PD revises the method for calculating the total deferred tax adjustment amount for the first year of application and subsequent fiscal years, thereby enhancing consistency in the operation of the regime     B. Extension of the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbor(17)         1) The ITCL-PD amendments will also extend the application period of the transitional CbCR safe harbor. This safe harbor deems that no top-up tax is payable where the simplified effective tax rate (ETR), calculated based on CbCR data under the simplified methodology, meets the prescribed threshold (15–17%). The deadline for applying the Transitional CbCR Safe Harbor has been extended by one year, to fiscal year beginning before December 31, 2027 and ending before June 30 and the applicable simplified ETR threshold for the extended period has been set at 17%. Additionally, the exemption from the UTPR, which provides that no UTPR top-up tax is allocated where the statutory corporate tax rate in the UPE’s jurisdiction is at least 20%, has also been extended. This exemption applies to fiscal years beginning before December 31, 2025 and ending before December 30, 2026.     C. Introduction of the DMTT         The ITCL-PD amendments also introduce DMTT in line with the OECD GloBE Model Rules and related administrative guidance. The DMTT is intended to meet the requirements as a Qualified DMTT (QDMTT) under the OECD Inclusive Framework, subject to peer review and approval. The amount of QDMTT is calculated as follows: [Minimum tax rate (15%) – ETR of domestic CEs] x Excess profit (Net GloBE income – Substance Based Income) + Current Additional Top-up Tax. Given that Korea’s statutory corporate income tax rate ranges from 10% to 25%, exclusive of local taxes, under the CITL amendments, it is not anticipated that a significant number of domestic corporations will fall below the 15% minimum rate. However, where the ETR is reduced due to tax incentives, exemptions, or credits, the DMTT may become applicable. In such cases, the QDMTT will take precedence over the IIR and the UTPR.         A detailed summary of the ITCL-PD amendments are summarized below:         1) Calculation of Adjusted Covered Taxes for Purposes of the Domestic Top-up Tax (DMTT)(18) In determining the DMTT, the calculation of adjusted covered taxes generally follows the methodology prescribed under the GloBE framework. However, certain covered taxes allocated to a domestic CE from foreign CEs for the purposes of the GloBE calculation are excluded when computing the DMTT.             The specific scope of such exclusions has been delegated to the ITCL-PD. Under the ITCL-PD amendments, the following covered taxes are excluded from the calculation of adjusted covered taxes for DMTT purposes: (i) covered taxes recorded by a foreign head office that are attributable to income derived by a domestic permanent establishment (PE); and (ii) covered taxes recorded by a foreign shareholder CE that are attributable to: 1) income of hybrid entities that are domestic CEs; 2) dividend income received from domestic CEs; and 3) Income of domestic CEs treated as controlled foreign corporations (CFCs).         2) Scope of Permanent Establishments (“PEs”) Subject to the DMTT(19)             The scope of PEs subject to the DMTT, particularly in the case of a stateless or flow-through entity deemed not to have a jurisdiction of residence, has been delegated to the ITCL-PD. Under the ITCL-PD amendments, where the head office conducts business in Korea through a “Type 4 PE” (a PE whose income is not subject to taxation in any jurisdiction), the DMTT will be computed separately with respect to that PE.         3) Statutory Apportionment of DMTT Among Domestic CEs(20)             The DMTT attributable to an MNE group may be allocated among domestic CEs either through a statutory allocation method or a designated allocation method.             The detailed statutory allocation rules have been delegated to the ITCL-PD. Under the ITCL-PD amendments: (i) in principle, the DMTT is allocated in proportion to the GloBE income of each domestic CE; and (ii) where there is no net GloBE income for the relevant fiscal year, but DMTT arises due to accumulated adjustments, the allocation is determined as follows: 1) where the ETR and DMTT are recalculated for a prior fiscal year, the additional domestic tax is allocated based on the GloBE income of each CE for that prior year; and 2) where the adjusted covered tax amount is lower than the estimated adjusted covered tax amount and the difference is treated as additional DMTT, the tax is allocated in proportion to the difference calculated for each CE         4) Reporting and Payment of DMTT(21), Calculation of GloBE Top-up Tax that apply to other DMTT(22), and Other Special Rules(23)             The reporting and payment procedures applicable to the allocation of the DMTT follow the same framework as that applicable to the allocation of top-up tax under the global minimum tax regime.             In addition, the methods for calculating covered taxes, adjustments to covered tax, and determining the ETR follow the same methodology as that used for the calculation of top-up tax for global minimum tax purposes. Various special provisions applicable to the global minimum tax (such as the de minimis exclusion, special rules for minority-owned entities, investment CEs, and joint ventures, as well as applicable exclusions) also apply to the DMTT. 5. Introduction of a Domestic Investment Income Exemption for the Bank for International Settlements (“BIS”) (24)     BIS is an international financial institution established to promote cooperation among central banks worldwide. Funds deposited with the BIS by national central banks and international organizations are invested and managed in assets of major jurisdictions. At present, the BIS invests in Korean government bonds and monetary stabilization securities (treasury bills), which are exempt from Korean taxation.     To support the BIS’s expansion of KRW-denominated investments, the BIS’s domestic investment income (interest, dividends, securities transfer gains, and other income) is now included within the scope of tax exemption applicable to interest income from international financial transactions.(25)     The RSTL-PD amendments (Art. 18) further delegates detailed matters, including the scope of eligible international financial organizations, the specific categories of exempt income, the application procedure for exemption, and the process for claiming such exemption. Specifically: 1) “Other income” eligible for exemption is limited to income derived from economic benefits related to domestic assets under Art. 93(10) k) of the CITL; 2) the application procedure for exemption follows the existing procedure applicable to interest and transfer income from government bonds earned by foreign corporations; and 3) the claim procedure for exemption follows the procedure applicable to treaty-based tax exemptions for foreign companies. 6. Introduction of Special Tax Treatment for In-kind Contribution of Shares in a Foreign Company (26)     To support the overseas business restructuring of domestic corporations, the amended RSTL introduces a tax deferral mechanism for capital gains arising from the in-kind contribution of shares in a foreign company by a domestic corporation to another foreign company. Under this provision, where a domestic corporation that has been in business for at least five years makes an in-kind contribution of shares or equity interests in a foreign subsidiary in which it holds at least 20% to a foreign corporation in which it holds at least 80%, taxation of the capital gains arising from the transaction is deferred for 4 years. The deferred capital gains are then included in taxable income in equal installments over the subsequent 3 years.     Detailed matters including the method for calculating the deferred capital gain and the circumstances triggering termination of the deferral (such as a subsequent disposal of the contributed shares) have been delegated to the RSTL-PD amendments. Under the amended RSTL-PD, where shares acquired through the in-kind contribution are subsequently disposed of, the amount to be included in taxable income is calculated as follows:     Capital gains from the in-kind contribution not yet included in taxable income as of the end of the previous fiscal year × (Number of shares disposed of during the fiscal year ÷ Number of shares held at the end of the previous fiscal year that were acquired through the in-kind contribution).     In addition, the tax deferral will be terminated where: (i) the transferee disposes of more than 50% of the shares in the foreign corporation acquired through the in-kind contribution; or (ii) the contributing company’s ownership interest in the transferee falls below 50%. In such cases, the entire remaining balance of the deferred capital gain that has not yet been included in taxable income will be recognised as income in the relevant fiscal year. 7. Clarification of the Criteria for Recognizing an “Agent PE” (27)     The IITL-PD and CITL-PD amendments align the criteria for recognizing an Agent PE with OECD standards. In particular, the requirement has been revised from referring to “an independent agent that conducts a significant portion of its business primarily for a specific foreign corporation” to “an independent agent that conducts a significant portion of its business wholly or almost wholly for a related party.” 8. Streamlining Documentation for Claims of Exemption on Interest and Capital Gains from Government Bonds (28)     The CITL amendments simplifies the documentation requirements for non-residents and foreign companies seeking tax exemption on interest and capital gains derived from government bonds. In particular, the former “Application for Tax Treaty Exemption or Reduction” has been renamed the “Tax Treaty Exemption Claim Form for Interest and Capital Gains on Government Bonds.” In addition, the revised rules permit the submission of alternative documentation demonstrating non-resident or foreign company status in lieu of the previously required certificate of residence.     This amendment applies to claims filed on or after the effective date of the revised provisions. 9. Expansion of the Scope of Partial Tax Audits in Relation to Advance Pricing Agreements (“APAs”) (29)     Previously, where an application for an APA is submitted prior to the notification of a tax audit, the audit may be suspended solely with respect to the transfer pricing aspects of the relevant international transactions for the period covered by the APA application.(30) The NBTL-PD amendments expanded the scope of partial tax audits in order to enhance the effectiveness of tax audit with respect to the APA implementation. Under the amended NBTL-PD, even where an APA application is subsequently cancelled, withdrawn, or the review process is suspended after submission, the tax authorities may conduct a partial tax examination in respect of the matters covered by the APA application.     This measure will apply to tax audits initiated on or after the effective date of the amended NBTL-PD (expected to be in the last week of February 2026, since it takes effect immediately upon promulgation). The Tax Group at Lee & Ko possesses extensive experience and expertise in both domestic and international tax matters. Please feel free to contact us should you require assistance with any tax-related matters, including those discussed in this newsletter. (1) Also referred to as Enforcement Decrees. (2) IITL, Art. 57-2(2) and (3); IITL-PD Art. 117-2(3) and (5) (3) IITL, Art. 57-2(2) (4) CITL, Art. 15(2) and 57-2(1)-(3); CITL-PD, Art. 94-2(3)-(4) (5) CITL, Art. 15(2), sub-paragraph 3 (6) CITL, Art. 57-2(2) (7) Art. 124(2) of the CITL, Appendix 2 to the CITL-PD (8) CITL, Art. 94(2) (9) CITL, Art. 124(2) (10) IITL, Art. 118-9 to 118-18; ITL-PD Art. 178-8(2) and 178-9(2) (11) IITL, Art. 118-9 (12) IITL-PD, Art. 178-8(2) (13) IITL-PD, Art. 178-9(2) (14) This is calculated in accordance with Art. 63 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Law, at a ratio of 3:2. (15) ITCL, Art. 73-2 to 73-7 (16) ITCL-PD, Art. 101, 111, 119, 125-2, 113(1), 139 (17) ITCL-PD, newly established Art. 138(1)-(6) (18) ITCL, Art. 73-3; ITCL-PD, Art. 125-3(2) and (3) (19) ITCL, Art. 73-5(5); ITCL-PD Art. 125-6 (20) ITCL, Art. 73-7(2); ITCL-PD, Art. 125-8 (21) ITCL, Art. 73-7(2); ITCL-PD, Art. 125-8 (22) ITCL Art. 73-3 to 73-6; ITCL-PD Art. 125-3 to 125-5, 125.7 (23) ITCL Art. 74, 75, 77, 79, 80; ITCL-PD Art. 126, 131, 135, 137, 138 (24) RSTL, Art. 21(4)-(6); RSTL-PD, Art. 17 (25) RSTL, Art. 21 (26) RSTL, Art. 38-4; RSTL-PD, Art. 35-6 (27) IITL-PD, Art. 180; CITL-PD, Art. 133 (28) IITL-PD, Art. 207-2; CITL-PD, Art. 138-4 (29) Presidential Decree of the National Basic Tax Law (“NBTL-PD”), Art. 63-12 (30) Regulations on the Administration of International Tax Affairs, Art. 81  

Statistical Analysis of Domestic Intellectual Property in 2025 This report analyzes the 2025 statistics on intellectual property applications and Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB) cases based on the data published by the Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) in January 2026. While the number of intellectual property applications filed with MOIP in 2025 increased compared to 2024, there was a slight decrease in the number of cases handled by IPTAB. 1. Overall Intellectual Property Application Trends     The total number of IP applications, including applications for patents, utility models, designs, and trademarks, in 2025 reached 582,005 – an increase compared to 2024 (560,629) – and represents an increase of 3.8%. Specifically, the number of applications for patents, utility models, designs, and trademarks increased by 5.9%, 7.9%, 1.3%, and 2.3%, respectively.