新着情報

Lee & Ko represented LG Energy Solution Ltd. and LG Energy Solution Michigan Inc. (“LGESMI”) in connection with LGESMI’s acquisition of a 49% equity interest in Green Metal Battery Innovations, LLC (“GMBI”), a U.S.-based lithium-ion battery preprocessing company, and successfully obtained unconditional clearance from the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”).

The transaction involved LGESMI acquiring its interest from Toyota Tsusho America, Inc., an affiliate of the Toyota Tsusho Group (“TTC Group”). As the TTC Group retained control over GMBI following the transaction, the KFTC reviewed the matter as a business combination between the LG Group and the TTC Group in the lithium-ion battery scrap materials market.

Although the lithium-ion battery recycling and preprocessing market has experienced rapid growth, it remains at a relatively early stage of development, and limited market data presented challenges in assessing potential competitive effects. At the same time, GMBI’s business schedule required an efficient and expedited review process.

Drawing on its in-depth understanding of the battery recycling industry and extensive experience in merger control matters, Lee & Ko effectively explained the transaction structure and relevant market dynamics to the KFTC and responded promptly to regulatory inquiries. The firm demonstrated that the transaction would not give rise to anticompetitive concerns in the Korean market, resulting in unconditional clearance within approximately three weeks (with a substantive review period of five days).
 

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 represented EcoPro Co., Ltd. and EcoPro Materials (collectively, “EcoPro Group”) in their acquisition of shares in PT. Green Eco Nickel, a nickel MHP manufacturing company located in Indonesia, and successfully secured unconditional merger clearance from the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”).

In this case, the key issue was the definition of the relevant product market, as a narrower market definition could result in vertical and horizontal overlap across various sub-markets.

Despite existing precedents on market definition, the KFTC expressed its clear intention to adopt a narrower market definition and conducted a rigorous review of the transaction. In response, Lee & Ko submitted extensive materials on the market definition, including opinions from interested parties and experts, and persuasively argued that the transaction would not raise any anticompetitive concerns regardless of how the relevant market was defined.

Because of pressing business needs, obtaining swift approval by the KFTC before the end of May was critical for EcoPro Group. Amid repeated requests from the KFTC for supplemental materials, Lee & Ko developed effective response strategies based on a deep understanding of the industry and extensive expertise in merger review cases.

As a result of these professional and systematic efforts in responding to the KFTC’s requests, Lee & Ko secured unconditional merger clearance within 7 days (excluding the period for responding to the KFTC’s request for supplemental materials), enabling the client to achieve its business objectives.

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.
 

Lee & Ko’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group conducted a mock dawn raid and comprehensive antitrust risk assessment of a multinational corporate group (“Group A”) under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (“MRFTA”). 

During the mock dawn raid, Lee & Ko’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group used the same methods and procedures as the Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) in its investigations and offered additional solutions for deficiencies that were discovered during Group A’s response to the mock dawn raid.

In addition, Lee & Ko’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group collected materials and conducted interviews with key executives and employees of Group A’s three affiliate companies. Using the information gathered during the mock dawn raid, Lee & Ko’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group confirmed the compliance of the companies with the MRFTA and provided measures for improving compliance in necessary areas. 

The mock dawn raid conducted by Lee & Ko’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group is invaluable as it helps to prevent executives and employees with limited knowledge and experience on the MRFTA from committing acts during a dawn raid that could be considered obstruction and providing guidance on cooperating with a KFTC investigation while protecting the right to defense. Group A utilized the mock dawn as an opportunity to check and strengthen compliance management in all areas of its business. 

Following the recent reorganization of the KFTC in separating its investigation and policy divisions, establishing proper procedures for responding to KFTC dawn raids is of the utmost importance as the investigative function of the KFTC has been strengthened through the reorganization and led to an increase in the number of dawn raids. 

Lee & Ko’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group actively utilizes its extensive expertise in responding to large-scale dawn raids to ensure companies are prepared for dawn raids, and more importantly, thoroughly and comprehensively managing MRFTA related risks.