Our law firm has worked with foreign clients of all shapes and sizes doing business in Korea. Surprisingly, we see many of the same issues with our multinational clients as with our SME clients, so we drafted this post. TOP TEN ERRORS OF COMPANIES IN THE KOREA MARKET Am I missing anything? Sean Hayes Sean Hayes is the first non-Korean attorney to have worked for the Korean court system (Constitutional Court of Korea) and one of the first non-Koreans to be a regular member of a Korean law
Continue readingCategory: Korean Constitutional Law
Constitutional Court of Korea on Gifting of Property to Children who Abandon Parents
The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that a provision in the Korean Civil Code prohibiting the revocation of a gift of property already transferred, even if a child abandons their duty to support their parents, does not violate the Korean Constitution. The Court also ruled that the provision prohibiting the revocation of a gift after it has been executed on the grounds that the contract was not in writing or that the donor’s financial condition has deteriorated is constitutional. The case stems from a constitutional complaint filed
Continue reading“Earned Income” Definition under Korean Income Tax Act held constitutional by Korean Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled a provision of the Korean Income Tax Act defining the scope of benefits included in “earned income” as constitutional. The Court determined that the provision of the Income Tax Act, which defines earned income as “salaries, wages, remuneration, allowances, bonuses, and benefits of a similar nature received by providing labor,” does not violate the principle of clarity in tax requirements. (2024 HunBa 8384 and 2025Hyun100, etc.). Case Summary Decision of the Korean Constitutional Court on the Clarity of Earned Income Definition
Continue readingKorean Supreme Court Upholds Right to Tattoo by Non-Medical Professionals
The Korean Supreme Court, in an en banc ruling, held that tattooing performed by non-medical professionals is not an unlicensed medical practice. The Court overturned prior Supreme Court precedents that deemed tattooing an unlicensed medical practice. The Supreme Court of Korea ruled in May 1992 that eyebrow tattooing was an unlicensed medical practice (91do3219). The Supreme Court of Korea ruled in April 2004 (2004do673) that ordinary calligraphy tattooing constitutes a medical act and is punishable as an unlicensed medical act. Facts Issue Whether cosmetic and “calligraphy” tattooing
Continue readingKorean Constitutional Court Upholds Use of Video Testimony for Disabled Sexual Assault Victims: Korea’s Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence
The Constitutional Court of Korea upheld the constitutionality of a controversial evidentiary provision permitting the use of pre-recorded video statements of certain sexual assault victims. In a split 4–5 decision (Case No. 2023Heonga20), the Court declined to invalidate Article 30(6) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes. Six votes are required, under Korean Law, to strike down a statute, and the Court received 5 votes to invalidate the law in question. For additional articles on Korean Constitutional Law and Criminal
Continue readingAmendment to Korean Constitutional Court Act
In February 2026, the Constitutional Court Act of Korea was amended to allow constitutional complaints against court judgments. Prior to this amendment, court judgments were excluded from the scope of Constitutional Court review. The author of this article is the first non-Korean attorney to work for the Constitutional Court of Korea and for the Korean judicial system. Major Revision to the Korean Constitutional Court Act Article 68(3) (Added to the Constitutional Court Act of Korea)The Amendment allows the filing of a petition against a final and conclusive
Continue readingKorean Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations in Criminal Cases in Korea
In a recent decision by the Korean Supreme Court, the Court clarified how a statute of limitations tolls in Korea in criminal cases. The Supreme Court of Korea held that when prosecutors amend an indictment to add related charges, the statute of limitations should be determined based on the date of the original indictment rather than the date of the amendment of the indictment. On January 15, 2026, the Second Criminal Division of the Korean Supreme Court (Chief Justice Kwon Young-jun) overturned an appellate court decision that
Continue readingAttorney-Client Privilege in Korea Clarified and Strengthened by Korean Supreme Court Holding
Cancellation of Seizure of Legal Opinion & Evidence in Korean Criminal Prosecution (2024Mo730) On February 20, 2025, the First Division of the Supreme Court of Korea (Chief Justice Shin Sook-hee) issued a significant ruling in 2024Mo730, canceling the Korean prosecution’s seizure of approximately 120,000 emails and related materials that included legal opinions exchanged between criminal defendants and their Koraen defense counsel. IPG Legal advises proactivity and demanding that your lawyers in Korea share all sensitive data via a secure cloud drive. For additional articles in Korean Criminal Law
Continue readingProcedural Legality and the Right to Counsel in Korean School Violence & Other School Committee Disciplinary Proceedings in Korea
Recent reports concerning the restriction on Korean attorneys’ participation in School Violence Countermeasures Review Committee (SSCRB) proceedings raise issues in Korean administrative law and constitutional law: whether limiting an attorney’s presence and participation in quasi-adjudicative disciplinary proceedings violates the right to representation and/or constitutes a procedurally unlawful administrative action. Reported variations in committee practice – ranging from full Korean attorney participation in some schools to preclusion or speech restrictions in others – demonstrate the absence of unified procedural standards and processes. The Korean Bar Association has noted
Continue readingKorean Supreme Court Statute of Limitation Holding on the May 18 Democratization Movement Uprising
The Supreme Court of Korea overturned a lower court’s ruling that the statute of limitations had expired in a lawsuit filed by the families of the alleged victims of the “May 18 Democratization Movement” (May 18, 1980). The full bench of the Korean Supreme Court ruled that courts in Korea should consider the circumstances that made it difficult for the families to file a lawsuit due to past compensation payments and the presumption of settlement clause. For additional articles on the Korean Statute of Limitations, please see: Korean
Continue reading
You must be logged in to post a comment.