Court system What is the structure of the civil court system? The civil court system in South Korea has a three-tier structure. At first instance, civil cases are generally heard by district courts, unless jurisdiction is governed by specialised courts such as family courts, administrative courts, the Bankruptcy Court or the Patent Court. Depending on the nature and value of the claim, a case may be heard by a single judge or by a panel of three judges. At second instance, appeals from single-judge decisions are heard
Continue readingCategory: Korean Litigation
Korean 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 readingTrends in the Korean Civil Litigation System (2026)
The past year has been unusually active for dispute resolution in Korea. The most important developments concern attorney-client privilege, constitutional review of final court judgments, arbitration rules, and corporate-governance reforms that are likely to generate more shareholder and board-level disputes. We shall update the reader when more is known. Please check back often. Korea has taken a major step toward statutory attorney-client privilege. On January 29, 2026, the National Assembly passed an amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act of Korea introducing a new Article 26-2. The amendment recognizes
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 readingShall Korean Bonuses be Utilized for Calculating of Average Wages for Severance Payment Calculation Purposes?
The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that Hanwha Ocean (formerly Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering)’s performance-based bonuses should not be considered wages for the calculation of severance payments under Korean Law. For additional articles on Korean Employment & Labor Law, see: IPG Legal’s Labor & Employment Law Archive On March 12, 2026, the Korean Supreme Court (2025da210219) upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of the defendants in a lawsuit filed by 972 current and former Hanwha Ocean employees seeking severance pay based not only on salary
Continue readingTrade Secret Protection Act Crimes in Korea Clarified by Supreme Court of Korea
In a ruling that is important for technology companies, multinational employers, and cross-border R&D stakeholders, the Supreme Court of Korea (Third Criminal Division, January 15, 2025, 2025Do13231) held that the crimes of acquiring, using, and disclosing trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act of Korea must be independently examined rather than analysed as a single course of conduct. This decision, arising from a high-profile semiconductor trade secret case involving a former Samsung Electronics executive and the alleged leakage of 18nm DRAM process
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 readingSK Hynix Injunction Against Employee Rejected by Seoul Central District Court
SK Hynix lost an injunction case seeking to enjoin a former employee from transferring jobs to Samsung Electronics (2025KaHap21284). SK Hynix did not appeal the decision, and the decision was finalized on January 20, 2026. For an article on the Korean Supreme Court precedent on the enforceability of Non-Compete Clauses, please see: Non-Compete Clauses in Korea Facts SK Hynix Restrictive Covenant Enforcement Case at the Seoul Central District Court Holding On January 9, 2026, a Seoul Central District Court dismissed SK Hynix’s application for an injunction enjoining a
Continue readingLitigation Financing in Korea
Burford Capital is actively entering the Korean market. Burford Capital is one of the leaders in litigation finance worldwide. The firm just announced the appointment of a Korean representative for its presence in Korea. Burford noted to a local vernacular that it plans to focus on international disputes involving Korean companies, including international arbitration, cross-border disputes, and intellectual property disputes. It, also, shall focus on “non-core pre-monetization” model and “portfolio-based financing.” The non-core pre-monetization model allows companies to secure capital liquidity by monetizing non-core assets such as
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.