South Korea

The use of foreign-flagged WTIV and their crews in the installation of offshore wind farms under Korean law 1 I.

Partner Chang Ho Seong of Lee & Ko’s Dispute Resolution Group has been named by Asian Legal Business (ALB) to its 2025 list of the Top 30 Litigators in Asia. Having served as a judge for 24 years since 1999, Mr. Seong brings deep insight from his time on the bench, during which he presided over a broad spectrum of civil, criminal, and administrative cases across multiple court levels spanning the Seoul Central District Court, the Seoul High Court, and the Supreme Court. He now draws on his extensive judicial experience to provide clients with litigation and legal advisory services in response to disputes and provisional dispositions involving civil, criminal, corporate, construction, real estate, banking, securities, financial, administrative and intellectual property matters. Among his recent selected representations, Mr. Seong successfully defended SPC Group Chairman Young-in Heo in a high-profile criminal case involving allegations of breach of trust under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, securing a full acquittal at the court of first instance — an outcome ultimately upheld by both the appellate court and the Supreme Court. He also obtained a full acquittal at the court of first instance on behalf of former Chairman Yang-ha Choi of Korean furniture company Hanssem in a criminal collusion case, which was subsequently dismissed on appeal. These achievements reaffirm his proven expertise and capacity in handling complex criminal and administrative litigation. ALB Magazine, published by Thomson Reuters, is a leading legal publication in the Asia-Pacific region. In its June issue, ALB recognized the top 30 litigators in Asia who have delivered outstanding results in high-impact litigation across the region.

On February 6, 2025, the Ministry of Employment and Labor (the “MOEL”) released an updated labor-management guidance on ordinary wage (the “Guidance”) in response to the recent Supreme Court en banc decisions overruling its previous position on ordinary wage. The Guidance aims to clarify the newly established legal principle on ordinary wage and mitigate potential disputes and confusion surrounding its application. On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued two en banc decisions and overruled its previous decision on ordinary wage (i.e., the December 18, 2013 en banc decision, the “2013 Supreme Court Decision”) by eliminating the “fixed” element of the requirement of ordinary wage. The 2013 Supreme Court Decision held that wage items that are paid to employees only if the employee is employed at a particular time are not “ordinary wage” because they are neither compensation for “prescribed labor” nor meet the “fixed” requirement for ordinary wage. Although this has been considered a well-established court precedent on this issue, the Supreme Court recently overruled this position and presented a new basis for determining which wage items should be included in ordinary wage. The new en banc decisions abolished the “fixed” element and reestablished the definition of ordinary wage as “…compensation for prescribed labor that is paid on regular and uniform basis…” In other words, the Supreme Court held that employees who provide prescribed labor in its entirety will not be denied the inclusion of relevant wage items in ordinary wage merely because there are certain conditions attached to the payment of such wage items (e.g., the condition that the employee must be employed on the day of payment or that the employee must work a minimum number of days during the prescribed working days to receive the wage item). The Guidance summarizes the MOEL’s response to some of the most frequently raised questions surrounding the Supreme Court’s en banc decisions in a Q&A format. We highlight some of the key clarifications below. (1) Should a wage that is conditioned on current employment (i.e., employed on the day of payment) be considered ordinary wage? If the wage is pre-determined in consideration of the prescribed work and is paid on a “regular” and “uniform” basis, it will fall under the scope of ordinary wage even if it is conditioned on current employment. Case example: Regular bonuses paid quarterly to current employees constitute ordinary wage. (2) For a new employee who has not yet become eligible to receive a regular bonus due to his/her short tenure, would the regular bonus still fall under ordinary wage? If the regular bonus meets the requisite criteria and is thus treated as ordinary wage, it should be included in the calculation of ordinary wage even if the employee has not yet become eligible to receive it. Case example: Even if an employee joins the company after the bonus payment date and is thus not yet eligible to receive the bonus, the annual regular bonus should nonetheless be included in the ordinary wage for the calculation of overtime work allowance. (3) How should a regular bonus be factored into the calculation of ordinary wage? Pursuant to Article 6, Paragraph 2, Items 5 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, ordinary hourly wage shall be calculated by dividing the “annual aggregate regular bonus” by the “annual total hours for the calculation of ordinary wage.”(4) Should wages conditioned on “current employment” or the “number of completed working days” be paid in proportion to the completed service period? In line with the Supreme Court decision, the validity of the conditions attached to the “payment” of a regular bonus should be reviewed separately from the question of whether it should be included in ordinary wage. Therefore, unless there is a reason to determine otherwise, such “payment” conditions are valid and employers are not obliged to pay such regular bonus if its conditions are not satisfied.To facilitate the seamless application of the new legal principle and the updated guidelines under the Guidance, the MOEL announced that it will (i) conduct labor-management explanatory sessions and meetings, (ii) provide guidance on updating collective bargaining agreements, rules of employment and employment agreements, and (iii) assist businesses in restructuring their compensation structures. Employers that have the payment of certain wage items conditioned on the employee being employed on the day of payment or on the employee having to work a minimum number of days will have to review and revise their salary system and/or prepare for potential disputes. Unions will also take a keen interest on the development of these issues. https://www.kimchang.com/en/insights/detail.kc?sch_section=4&idx=31856    

Lee & Ko has once again garnered top-tier recognition across all evaluated categories in the 2025 edition of the IAM Patent 1000. The firm earned the highest band ranking of “Gold” in both patent litigation and prosecution, along with additional distinctions as “Highly Recommended” in transactions and “Recommended” in trade secret litigation. This marks the 11th consecutive year that the firm has ranked in the Gold tier for litigation and the fourth year running as a Highly Recommended firm for transactions. Notably, 10 attorneys and patent attorneys at Lee & Ko have been listed as “Recommended Individuals” across all key practice areas—litigation, prosecution, transactions, trade secrets, etc.—in recognition of their exceptional expertise in the patent field. Ranked lawyers - Litigation: Un Ho Kim, John Kim, Jae Hoon Kim, Keum Nang Park, Hwan Sung Park, and Hayoun Chun - Prosecution: Hyeon Gil Ryoo and Sungsoo (Sean) Hwang - Transactions: Hayoun Chun and Yong Jin Cho - Trade secrets: Hong Seon Kim Lee & Ko’s IP Practice Group provides legal services catered to clients in response to various IP-related disputes in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other countries by leveraging its extensive overseas network while delivering optimal outcomes in IP-related consultancy and disputes through a nuanced understanding of both technology and law. A prime example of the group’s litigation excellence is its recent success representing Coway in a long-running patent infringement dispute with ChungHo Nais over ice water purifier technology. Following three years of protracted hearings, the Korean Supreme Court issued a final judgment in favor of Coway, bringing to an end the lengthy legal battle between the two companies that spanned 11 relentless years. Widely regarded as the longest-running patent litigation in Korea, this case began in 2014 when ChungHo Nais filed a complaint for patent infringement and damages against Coway. ChungHo Nais prevailed in the court of first instance, with the court acknowledging infringement claims and awarding significant compensation. Amid its multiple, though unsuccessful, patent invalidation attempts, Coway newly retained Lee & Ko in 2022 for the appellate phase, and stepping in at a pivotal juncture, the firm eventually secured a complete dismissal of all claims brought by ChungHo Nais, culminating a dramatic reversal and a landmark victory on behalf of Coway before the Supreme Court in this high-profile patent dispute. Lee & Ko’s IP Practice Group also successfully represented Wonik PNE in a case involving the unauthorized patent registration of a secondary battery activation device developed by one of its employees in the course of performing official duties, by leading the case from filing a patent ownership transfer suit to securing a favorable ruling on behalf of Wonik PNE. In addition, the group is at the forefront of protecting companies from the leakage or misappropriation of their core technologies through its active engagement in trade secret litigation. As additionally evidenced by a recent court victory on behalf of Naver, where the firm obtained an injunction against unauthorized crawling of real estate listing data, Lee & Ko continues to reaffirm its strong track record across the full spectrum of IP law, including patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. This year’s newly awarded Gold ranking in the prosecution category further highlights its deep bench and outstanding expertise throughout all facets of IP matters. IAM is a global patent publication released every year that conducts surveys and interviews with patent experts and law firms all over the world, and ranks the best law firms and experts in the patent field by country and sector, based on submissions and client feedback.

Yoon & Yang, one of the big-six law firms in Korea, has doubled down on its international practice. The firm is being hailed for its “game changing hires” for its international tax practice with the recruitment of three leading figures from a competing law firm – Messrs. Jay Shim, Sung Hyun Ryu, and Hoanku Lee. Mr. Jay Shim is one of the leading authorities in the field of international taxation in Korea.  His experience and reputation in the Korean tax markets require little introduction.  With over 35 years of experience, Mr. Shim has founded, shaped, and led tax practices at some of the leading law firms in Korea, including as the former co-head of tax practice at Lee & Ko, a position he held for over a decade.  In addition to his undisputed leadership in handling complex international tax planning and controversies, Mr. Shim has participated as an external expert advisor in the development of cross-border tax policies for the National Tax Service and the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and has also advised on creating and revising laws and enforcement decrees concerning international tax law and regulations.  He served as Co-Chair of the Tax Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea (AmCham Korea) for over 20 years and continues to speak at global forums, including the International Bar Association (IBA), the Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA), and the International Fiscal Association (IFA). Mr. Sung Hyun Ryu, who also joins Yoon & Yang from Lee & Ko, is a litigation heavyweight in international taxation.  In the early years of his legal career, he served as a deputy director for the National Tax Service (NTS), where he made his mark in the field of tax controversy with his role in litigating illegal VAT refunds and evasions surrounding gold bullion trades - known to be one of the biggest tax evasions in the nation’s history.  In recognition of his contribution, he received a Commendation from the NTS Commissioner in 2011.  After transitioning to private practice, he quickly rose through the ranks and gained a reputation in the market for his quick hits in litigating cross-border tax cases with an emphasis on royalty withholding issues.  Some of his recent victories include landmark royalty withholding cases before the Supreme Court, including the first case in which an Irish company was validly recognized by the Supreme Court as a beneficial owner of royalty paid from Korea to the Irish company for withholding tax purposes, over an allegation by the tax authorities that the Irish company was a mere paper company established in a tax haven acting as a conduit for its U.S. parent and that the U.S. parent was, in substance over form, the beneficial owner.  Beyond his litigation success, Mr. Ryu has served as a member of the Financial Reform Advisory Committee under the Financial Services Commission and a legislative support advisor to the National Assembly.  He is the author of The Tax Truth the NTS Won't Tell You. Mr. Hoanku Lee is a veritable tax visionary who, in his role as a legal advisor to the financial industry and the government, shaped Korea’s automatic exchange of information systems (e.g., FATCA, Common Reporting Standard (CRS), QI program, and Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework) – a global tax regime aimed at enhancing transparency in the international financial system.  He primarily focuses his practice on international tax and customs, providing high-caliber legal advice on tax issues related to the financial industry and capital markets with an emphasis on trust taxation.  He boasts a high success rate in international tax disputes, including intercompany trademark royalty litigations as well as transfer pricing disputes.  A notable representative matter includes a transfer pricing case in which the tax authorities tried to set a precedent and a guideline in Korea for the applicability of the profit split method as a transfer pricing method and fought the case vigorously for five years, with a high level of engagement and resources invested, and he ultimately secured a complete victory for the client. “The trio’s recruitment is a real game changer,” said managing partner Myung Soo Lee.  “We had explosive growth in our international tax practice in the past few years.  It is a real time of momentum for us, and we are about to see an even more significant take-up of the market share in the upcoming years.  Their recruitment is a major step for the firm’s ambitions to grow its international tax practice.” Yoon & Yang’s Tax Practice Group comprises approximately 65 attorneys, tax attorneys, certified public accountants, and other advisers.  The group won the “Tax and Trusts Law Firm of the Year” at the Asian Legal Business (ALB) Korea Law Awards 2020 in recognition of its role as a tax advisor in a cross-border real estate mega deal as well as its successful representation in a landmark value-added tax case.   The group was also recognized as the “South Korea Tax Firm of the Year” and the “South Korea Transfer Pricing Firm of the Year” at the International Tax Review (ITR) Asia Tax Awards 2019. For more information, please contact: Mr. Jae Hyuk Yang Senior Marketing/Communications Manager Yoon & Yang LLC Tel: (82-2) 6003-7229 Email: [email protected]