Recent Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee & Ko successfully secured a full acquittal at both the trial and appellate levels for Mirae Asset Global Investments Co., Ltd. and Mirae Asset Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Mirae Affiliates”) in a criminal case alleging violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”).

The prosecution alleged that the Mirae Affiliates unfairly allocated business to golf courses operated by an affiliate with a high ownership ratio held by a specially related party, thereby conferring undue benefits. The trial court rendered a full acquittal on January 16, 2025, and Lee & Ko prevailed again on appeal on October 24, 2025. The appellate ruling is particularly noteworthy given that related administrative litigation, after dismissal by the Seoul High Court, remains pending before the Supreme Court.

The principal issue in the criminal proceedings was whether the Mirae Affiliates possessed the requisite criminal intent to confer, or to tolerate the conferral of, undue benefits upon a specially related party through the use of group-owned golf courses.

Lee & Ko argued that establishing criminal intent with respect to abstract legal concepts under the MRFTA requires strict and careful proof. The firm emphasized that criminal liability should not be imposed where corporate group-level decisions reflect reasonable business judgment. Lee & Ko demonstrated that the use of group-owned golf courses formed part of a rational asset management strategy and that there was no intent or acceptance of conferring undue benefits.

Through meticulous review of documentary evidence and extensive witness examination, Lee & Ko successfully established the absence of criminal intent. The decision is particularly significant given the limited criminal precedent concerning the conferral of undue benefits to specially related parties. The appellate court clarified that criminal intent cannot be inferred solely from formal considerations, such as a high ownership ratio of a specially related party or the mere potential for indirect advantages in management succession, and underscored the need for caution in recognizing intent in the context of abstract statutory concepts under the MRFTA.

 

Lee & Ko represented CJ ENM and TVING in the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s (“KFTC”) merger review of a transaction which CJ ENM sought to acquire control of Wavve by having its executives hold concurrent positions at Wavve, based on the premise of a future TVING-Wavve merger. Lee & Ko successfully secured conditional approval with corrective measures that minimize the impact on the business operations of the companies.

In this case, the companies had a high market share in the subscription-based OTT market which is focused on pre-produced content. The KFTC, in line with its precedents in the OTT and media sectors, conservatively defined the relevant market in a manner disadvantageous to the companies. However, Lee & Ko utilized its deep understanding of the media sector and extensive experience in merger cases to persuasively present arguments addressing the KFTC’s concerns regarding the potential anticompetitive effects of the transaction. This resulted in the KFTC concluding that the transaction posed no concerns regarding (i) vertical overlap in the content supply and OTT markets and (ii) conglomerate effects between the OTT market and mobile telecommunications retail market.

Lee & Ko proactively utilized the voluntary commitment procedure, which was recently introduced in 2024, to propose behavioral remedies that addressed the KFTC’s concerns regarding potential anticompetitive effects and minimize business disruptions to the companies. In close coordination with the KFTC, Lee & Ko effectively demonstrated the effectiveness of the remedies and timely secured the KFTC’s approval of the transaction. According to the KFTC, this case is particularly meaningful as it is the first instance where behavioral remedies were imposed utilizing the newly implemented voluntary commitment procedure.
 

Lee & Ko, in its representation of BMW, successfully defended all civil claims filed by individuals and companies that purchased or leased vehicles from BMW.

The Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) determined that German automobile manufacturers engaged in collusion in violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”) by agreeing to utilize the feed-forward mode function for selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) systems in diesel passenger cars in 2006 and imposed administrative fines and corrective orders.

In this regard, individuals and companies that purchased or leased vehicles from the German automobile manufacturers filed a lawsuit for damages claiming the said German companies violated the MRFTA and Clean Air Conservation Act (“CACA”) for collusion related to the SCR agreement and size of urea tanks, and for violating the Fair Labelling and Advertising Act by concealing this fact in labels and advertisements.

The key issue in this case was whether the agreements resulted in damage to purchasers of the vehicles, to which Lee & Ko persuasively argued that (i) the alleged agreements did not cause any financial or emotional distress damages to the plaintiffs and (ii) the plaintiffs failed to provide any detailed evidence of incurring damages. 

As a result, the court ruled that the alleged collusion on urea tank size did not constitute collusion, the SCR agreement did not cause any damage to the plaintiffs, and that BMW was not liable for damages to the plaintiffs for false advertising and labelling because it did not violate the CACA.

Even though follow-on damage lawsuits were a possibility depending on the outcome of the lawsuit, the proactive defense by Lee & Ko, which had represented BMW from the KFTC’s investigation, resulted in all claims against BMW being rejected by the court. This result was critical as it prevented follow-on damage lawsuits.
 

Lee & Ko successfully represented Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance, Korea’s leading non-life insurance company, in a case involving allegations of collusion among several major domestic insurers in bids for comprehensive property and fire insurance commissioned by Korea Land & Housing Corporation in 2017~2018. Lee & Ko achieved a complete acquittal for the client before the court of first instance.

This case involved: (1) several of the insurance companies that participated in the bids voluntarily reporting the alleged collusion to the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”); (2) KFTC determining that collusion had occurred based on these voluntary reports and its own investigations, and subsequently imposing sanctions; and (3) the prosecution conducting a further investigation, relying on the voluntary reports and the KFTC’s findings, which ultimately led to indictments. There was substantial testimony and related evidence from the voluntary reporters that appeared to support the existence of collusion.

Lee & Ko conducted a meticulous analysis of the relevant legal principles, thoroughly reviewed the evidence, and proactively cross-examined witnesses to impeach all testimony and evidence suggesting the existence of collusion. At the same time, Lee & Ko provided clear and persuasive explanations regarding the structure and unique aspects of insurance bidding, as well as the circumstances at the time, actively arguing that there was no collusion as alleged by the prosecution and that the circumstances and statements cited as evidence could be fully explained without presuming collusion. The court held intensive hearings over more than two years and ultimately accepted the majority of Lee & Ko’s arguments, finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish the alleged collusion and delivering a complete acquittal. This case is significant in that, despite voluntary reports admitting to collusion and a range of related statements and court testimony, the court concluded that collusion was not proven and returned a not-guilty verdict. The outcome is regarded as a testament to Lee & Ko’s strong expertise and capabilities.
 

Lee & Ko successfully secured an acquittal for Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance (“Samsung Fire”), following the company being indicted for bid-rigging in insurance contracts tendered by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (“LH”).

In 2024, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) imposed an administrative fine against Samsung Fire and issued a criminal referral to the Prosecutor’s Office for colluding with other insurance companies in the bidding process for fire insurance on LH rental homes. As some companies filed leniency applications for their involvement in the collusion, refuting those statements and related evidence became a key issue in the case.

Lee & Ko represented Samsung Fire from the KFTC’s investigation stage and, during the trial, persuaded the court through multifaceted and thorough legal arguments, including newly raised issues regarding the admissibility of evidence in addition to the existing legal points. Through in-depth witness examinations, Lee & Ko explained the context of the insurance bidding and Samsung Fire's position, thereby refuting the charges in detail. In particular, Lee & Ko elicited several testimonies during the trial denying the existence of collusion, and challenged the credibility of statements acknowledging collusion, including those from companies that submitted leniency applications. As a result, the court, in accepting Lee & Ko’s arguments, determined that the evidence was insufficient to establish collusion and acquitted Samsung Fire of all charges.

The court’s decision in acquitting Samsung Fire despite other companies filing leniency applications demonstrates Lee & Ko’s outstanding expertise and capabilities in antitrust criminal defense. This decision is expected to set an important precedent for future criminal bid-rigging cases that involve leniency applications.
 

Lee & Ko successfully defended Mirae Asset Global Investments and Mirae Asset Life Insurance in a criminal case where the two companies were indicted for alleged violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (the “Fair Trade Act”). The prosecution alleged that the companies unfairly allocated business to a golf course operated by an affiliate with a high shareholding by related parties, thereby conferring undue benefits. On January 16, 2025, the court of first instance rendered a full acquittal on all charges.

The central issue in this case was whether the Mirae Asset affiliates intended to confer, or were willing to tolerate the conferral of, undue benefits to the related party through their use of the affiliate-owned golf course.

Representing Mirae Asset Global Investments and Mirae Asset Life Insurance, Lee & Ko focused on persuading the court that, in criminal proceedings, the ambiguous concept of “undue benefit” under the Fair Trade Act requires a higher standard of proof and a more rigorous assessment to establish intent. Lee & Ko argued that the use of the golf course was a rational business strategy consistent with the group’s ownership and use of such facilities, and that there was no intent or willingness to confer undue benefits to the related party at the time of use. As a result, the court found the prosecution’s allegations to be unsubstantiated and rendered a full acquittal.

This case is particularly significant due to the limited number of precedents addressing criminal liability for providing benefits to related parties under the Fair Trade Act. By emphasizing the need for strict proof and careful judicial assessment of intent, especially given the Act’s often ambiguous terminology, Lee & Ko was able to clearly demonstrate the absence of criminal intent. Through a meticulous review of evidence and extensive witness examinations, Lee & Ko effectively established its client’s position. The case underscores Lee & Ko’s deep expertise and strong capabilities in the area of criminal fair trade law.
 

Lee & Ko successfully obtained a ruling from the Seoul High Court that overturned all sanctions imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) against the Korean Bar Association and the Seoul Bar Association (collectively, the “Bar Associations”).

In this case, the KFTC determined that the Bar Associations had engaged in prohibited conduct for business associations under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA). The Bar Associations requested attorneys that are members of the Bar Associations to cease using the legal platform Law Talk and took disciplinary action against members that continued to use the platform.

Through a review of case precedents and a systematic interpretation of the Constitution and relevant laws, such as the Commercial Code, the Civil Act, and the Attorney-at-Law Act, Lee & Ko successfully persuaded the court by arguing:

(i) The Bar Associations’ supervision and management of member attorneys are not subject to the MRFTA or the Fair Labeling and Advertising Act, and the KFTC does not have the jurisdiction to review the Bar Associations' disciplinary actions taken against members, as bar associations function in a manner similar to public corporations and are entrusted with public administrative duties; 

(ii) Unlike general goods and services markets, where price competition is encouraged, the legal market is regulated to ensure that only licensed attorneys can provide legal services, thereby preventing the involvement of commercial capital. Therefore, the Bar Associations, established under the Attorney-at-Law Act, are granted broad autonomy in managing and supervising attorney conduct, including regulating the scope of advertising on platforms; and

(iii) In South Korea, there is a significant need for regulatory oversight over the operation of online legal platforms, including Law Talk.

Law Talk, a first-generation legal platform in South Korea, has been involved in numerous disputes over the past decade regarding the scope of the Bar Associations' management and supervision, as well as the legality of the services it provides. In addition, it is highly likely that similar disputes will arise in the future concerning other legal tech businesses. This ruling is expected to contribute to recognizing the Bar Associations' broad autonomy in managing and supervising attorney conduct, and provide a foundation for protecting the public and the high ethical standards of the legal profession.

Through this decision, it is expected that legal tech guidelines, which are being developed by the Ministry of Justice, will be properly established to contribute to sound and sustainable growth and innovation in the legal tech industry within the framework of laws such as the Attorney-at-Law Act.
 

For nearly 3 years (from 2019), the KFTC investigated LG Uplus’ for deceptively advertising its 5G mobile communications service as being the fastest at 20 Gbps (“Maximum Speed Ads”) and for unfairly advertising its 5G communications service speed as being faster than other service providers (“Comparative Speed Ads”). In 2022, the KFTC held its deliberation and ordered a rare re-investigation of the case including the allegation that LG Uplus advertised its 5G commercial network speed as 2.1 Gbps (“2.1 Ads”). The KFTC re-investigated LG Uplus in 2023 for 2.1 Ads, Maximum Speed Ads, and Comparative Speed Ads to determine if the ads were false, exaggerated or deceptive.

Lee & Ko represented LG Uplus throughout the KFTC investigation and deliberation process arguing (i) Maximum Speed Ads were standard advertising practices based on international standards, (ii) 2.1 Ads are not false, exaggerated or deceptive advertisements as the advertisements stated the “maximum” and “technical standard” of the commercial network speed and limitations of the technology, and (iii) Comparative Speed Ads were based on the results of objective transmission speed measurements, and clearly presented news reports and described the measurement process to demonstrate the comparison was not unfair or deceptive. Also, Lee & Ko actively argued the impact of the advertisements on consumers was insignificant, the investigation into 2.1 Ads showed the advertisement consisted of one word on the homepage requiring several steps to locate, and that an excessive increase in penalties would be disproportionate to the conduct. 

The KFTC accepted Lee & Ko’s arguments and described the 2.1 Ads as a “minor violation” without issuing an administrative fine. Lee & Ko’s successful representation resulted in LG Uplus being issued a reduced administrative fine of KRW 2.85 billion, significantly lower than the other telecom companies, which were fined KRW 16.82 billion and KRW 13.93 billion.