新着情報

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 advised HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering Co., Ltd., the intermediate holding company for the shipbuilding business of HD Hyundai Group, on its USD 1.55 billion overseas exchangeable bond offering. The bonds are exchangeable into common shares of HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. held by HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering, and the offering was successfully completed amid strong interest from global investors in Korea’s shipbuilding industry. The transaction attracted significant market attention as a large-scale overseas exchangeable bond offering involving shares of a key listed subsidiary of one of Korea’s leading shipbuilding groups.

Overseas exchangeable bond offerings require comprehensive review of various Korean law issues, including disclosure requirements relating to the exchange property, determination of the exchange price, exchange procedures, foreign exchange regulations and capital markets regulations. Lee & Ko provided comprehensive legal advice to the issuer throughout the transaction, including Korean law review of the offering structure, review of transaction documents and the offering circular, and advice on disclosure and governmental approval matters. Following its advice on LG Chem’s USD 2 billion overseas exchangeable bond offering in 2025, Lee & Ko once again demonstrated its strong expertise in overseas equity-linked bond offerings by Korean companies through its successful representation in this large-scale transaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case originated from the government's announcement on October 15, 2025, of real estate measures expanding the scope of designated regulation zones to all of Seoul and 12 regions in Gyeonggi Province. Designation as a regulation zone triggers strict regulations, including strengthened actual residence requirements and lowered Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios for housing mortgages. The plaintiffs argued that these real estate measures severely infringed upon their property rights and, in particular, that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport intentionally misused housing price statistics serving as the basis for designating regulation zones.

In response, Lee & Ko's Administrative Litigation (Appeal) team argued that the government possesses broad discretion in formulating real estate policies. Furthermore, the team contended that since housing price statistics for September were not available at the time of designating the regulation zones, the government had no choice but to utilize existing data, and the fact that September housing price statistics were announced just before the additional designation of regulation zones did not affect the legality of the measures.

Considering the importance and urgency of the matter, the court proceeded with the trial swiftly. As a result, only two months after the lawsuit was filed, in January 2026, the court accepted all of Lee & Ko's arguments and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. This case is evaluated as one where Lee & Ko's Administrative Litigation (Appeal) team demonstrated its ability to respond swiftly and accurately to government regulatory policies.
 

Lee & Ko secured a Supreme Court ruling reversing and remanding the lower court’s decision, which had treated the services at issue as exempt from value-added tax, by systematically advancing the legal argument that value-added tax refund agency services provided by a refund counter operator to foreign tourists do not constitute exempt “services similar to a money-lending business.”

The issue in this case was whether services under which a refund counter operator, acting on behalf of a tax-exempted seller, refunds value-added tax to foreign tourists and is reimbursed by the tax-exempted seller in the following month constitute “services similar to a money-lending business” under the Value-Added Tax Act and are therefore exempt from value-added tax.

The lower court held that the services constituted “services similar to a money-lending business,” reasoning, among other things, that the fees received by the refund counter operator could be regarded as interest on the amounts advanced, and accordingly upheld the tax assessment.

Before the Supreme Court, Lee & Ko presented detailed and rigorous arguments that: (i) the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act providing exemptions for money-lending businesses and other specified services must be strictly construed to cover only money-lending businesses in their ordinary sense, incorporating the essential elements of money lending; (ii) a “money-lending business” necessarily involves the extension of credit through the provision of money on the premise that a specified amount will be repaid after a certain period, whereas a refund counter operator merely advances the necessary expenses incurred in carrying out entrusted matters in its capacity as a mandatary under a merchant agreement with a tax-exempted seller and is subsequently reimbursed, which does not constitute the lending of money; and (iii) the intent of the parties to the transactions was likewise inconsistent with a loan of money. The Supreme Court accepted Lee & Ko’s arguments, held that the lower court had erred by misapprehending the governing legal principles in a manner that affected the outcome of the judgment, and reversed and remanded the case.

This ruling is significant because it clarifies that the substance of a refund counter operator’s business is not money lending, but rather the handling of administrative matters on behalf of another party. The ruling is expected to serve as an important precedent not only for refund counter operators, but also for the value-added tax treatment of various other agency service providers that receive fees under similar arrangements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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