Journalist
Kwon Kyu-hyung
spikekwon@ajunews.com
-
Appeals court sentences Yoon Suk Yeol to 7 years for blocking arrest warrant execution Former President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to seven years in prison on appeal for charges including obstructing the execution of an arrest warrant by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. On April 29, the Seoul High Court’s Criminal Division 1, a panel dedicated to insurrection-related cases led by Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik, sentenced Yoon to seven years for aggravated obstruction of official duties, abuse of power and related offenses. The term is two years longer than the five-year sentence in the first trial, but below the 10 years sought by the special prosecutor. The appeals court, unlike the first trial, found Yoon guilty on most charges. It upheld guilty verdicts on counts including abuse of power for infringing Cabinet members’ deliberation rights; violating the Presidential Records Act and damaging official documents; instructing abuse of authority under the Presidential Security Act involving a secure phone; and aggravated obstruction tied to blocking the execution of the arrest warrant. The court said it viewed as especially serious Yoon’s use of Presidential Security Service personnel to physically block CIO prosecutors from executing the warrant. Yoon’s side had argued the CIO lacked authority to investigate insurrection and that executing a warrant at the official residence, designated a protected military facility, would be illegal without a commander’s consent. The court rejected those claims. “The CIO has authority to investigate abuse-of-power offenses by high-ranking officials, and insurrection is a related offense discovered in the course of that investigation and therefore falls within the scope,” the court said. Citing the relationship between Article 110 of the Constitution and the Military Bases and Installations Act, it added that when national security conflicts with finding the substantive truth, “the president must not use national security as a shield to evade his own criminal responsibility.” The court also criticized security officials for forming a scrum to block prosecutors’ entry. It called it an act that “mobilized security service employees, who are state officials, as if they were the defendant’s private soldiers to obstruct the lawful duties of other state officials,” and said it undermined the foundations of the rule of law. The appeals court also reversed parts of the first ruling, finding Yoon guilty of infringing the deliberation rights of two Cabinet members — former Land, Infrastructure and Transport Minister Park Sang-woo and Industry and Trade Minister Ahn Duk-geun — and of ordering an overseas public relations secretary to draft and distribute press guidance, or PG. The first trial had found guilt only as to seven members who did not receive any notice to attend. The appeals court took a stricter view, saying Cabinet meetings require sufficient governmentwide deliberation and that notice must be given to all members with enough time to realistically attend. It said giving formal notice at a time when attendance was effectively impossible amounted to depriving members of their deliberation rights and hollowing out the constitutional role of the Cabinet through abuse of power. On the PG count, which the first trial had acquitted, the court cited the special prosecutor’s findings that Yoon instructed the overseas public relations secretary to distribute false claims to foreign media, including that access to the National Assembly had not been blocked and that there was no intent whatsoever to destroy the constitutional order. “Government press releases must be based on objective facts and must not exaggerate or state uncertain matters as definitive,” the court said, stressing a duty of good faith. It said spreading information contrary to the facts to foreign media dealt a major blow to South Korea’s international credibility and deceived the public’s right to know, constituting an abuse of power. The court, however, upheld not-guilty verdicts on charges of using a falsely prepared official document related to an after-the-fact department and on allegations of collusion with Kim Shin, head of the security service’s family protection division. In explaining the sentence, the court said Yoon, despite being president with a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the nation, hollowed out constitutional procedures and obstructed judicial action with physical force to avoid legal responsibility. It also cited what it described as a lack of remorse after the investigation began, saying his repeated legal claim that the CIO lacked investigative authority weighed against him in sentencing. After the seven-year sentence was announced, Yoon left the courtroom with a blank expression. His lawyers said they could not accept the ruling and would appeal. Earlier, the court and police tightly controlled access by Yoon supporters. The National Court Administration blocked entrances to the West Building of the Seoul Central District Court, where the courtroom is located, using police buses and barricades, and deployed riot police nearby. Reporters and spectators entered through the East Building.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-29 17:50:12 -
Justice Ministry Drops Appeals in 863 State Compensation Suits Over Past Abuses The Justice Ministry said it has withdrawn or waived appeals in 863 damages lawsuits filed against the state by victims of major past human rights abuses, including the Brothers Home case, Seongam Academy, the Samcheong re-education camp and the Yeosu-Suncheon Oct. 19 incident. The ministry said on the 29th it has taken steps to strengthen remedies for victims of past abuses, including refraining from routine appeals in state compensation cases, withdrawing or waiving appeals, and stopping statute-of-limitations defenses in cases that have received truth-finding decisions. As of March, the ministry said it had withdrawn or waived appeals in a total of 863 suits involving 3,587 plaintiffs: 116 Brothers Home cases (756 people), 42 Seongam Academy cases (357 people), 608 Samcheong cases (1,570 people) and 97 Yeosu-Suncheon Oct. 19 cases (904 people). Justice Minister Jeong Seong-ho also ordered blanket withdrawals and waivers of appeals in state compensation suits: on Aug. 5 last year for Brothers Home and Seongam Academy, on Sept. 29 for Samcheong, and on Oct. 13 for the Yeosu-Suncheon Oct. 19 incident. As a result, 2,202 victims received compensation totaling about 199.579 billion won. Prosecutors, citing the difficulty many victims face in pursuing legal procedures on their own, have also been using court-ordered retrials more actively. The ministry said prosecutors have secured not-guilty rulings in cases including the Jeju 4·3 incident and cases involving fishermen who were abducted and later returned, helping restore victims' reputations. The ministry and prosecutors have also begun reviewing records of deferred prosecution decisions, not only convictions. Deferred prosecution is a decision not to indict despite acknowledging wrongdoing, and it has continued to leave victims stigmatized as criminals. The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors Office said it reopened a case on its own authority and changed the disposition to "no charges" for a suspect who in 1983 had been handled under the National Security Act for possessing "Das Kapital." The Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office and the Gyeongju branch office also moved to change dispositions in cases involving the Assembly and Demonstration Act and cases tied to abducted-and-returned fishermen. Prosecutors are expected to continue actively considering "no charges" decisions based on relevant records and findings by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, even when co-defendants have not sought retrials or when retrials are still pending. A Justice Ministry official said, "These measures are the result of efforts to support, administratively and judicially, the core values of the people-sovereignty government: protecting human rights and addressing past abuses." The official added, "The Justice Ministry and prosecutors will continue to closely review petitions, including identifying retrial cases and canceling deferred prosecutions, and will do our utmost to restore honor so that not a single wronged victim is left behind."* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-29 14:13:55 -
South Korea Justice Ministry Holds 12th Legislative Drafting Contest for Students The Justice Ministry said it held the finals and awards ceremony for its 12th Legislative Drafting Academic Contest at 2 p.m. on April 28 in the ministry’s main conference room on the seventh floor. The annual contest invites university students, graduate students and law school students nationwide to submit proposals to enact or revise laws under the ministry’s jurisdiction, including the Civil Act, to gather new ideas from students. A total of 56 teams, or 191 people, took part this year, submitting proposals focused on easing everyday inconveniences and protecting vulnerable groups. After a blind preliminary review, the ministry selected nine teams for the finals. The finalists presented their proposals in person, followed by judging. Judges evaluated entries mainly on the need for revision and originality of solutions, consistency with the legal system and legal reasoning, and feasibility and usefulness. One grand prize, one top excellence award, two excellence awards and five encouragement awards were selected. Yonsei University won the grand prize for a proposed partial amendment to the Civil Act. Konkuk University received the top excellence award for a proposed partial amendment to the Civil Act. The ministry said it plans to actively use the ideas submitted through the contest in future policy efforts.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-29 10:19:12 -
Korea Constitutional Court Picks GC Pharma Vaccine Fine Case as First Trial Appeal The Constitutional Court has selected a vaccine collusion fine case involving GC Pharma as the first case to proceed under the newly introduced trial appeal system. According to legal officials on the 28th, the court had received 525 trial appeal petitions through the previous day and sent only one to the full bench for review. It is the first case to move to a merits review since the system was introduced on March 12. The case sent to the full bench is a petition filed by GC Pharma Co. seeking to overturn a Supreme Court decision. GC Pharma is the petitioner and the Supreme Court is the respondent. Law firm Yulchon represents GC Pharma. The dispute stems from allegations of bid rigging in a Gardasil vaccine procurement tender. The Korea Fair Trade Commission previously issued corrective orders and imposed a fine, saying GC Pharma colluded by using wholesalers as "dummy" bidders during the purchasing process. GC Pharma challenged the sanctions in court, but the Seoul High Court rejected its claim. In February, the Supreme Court also dismissed the company’s appeal without further review, a procedure used to reject appeals when statutory grounds are not met, thereby upholding the lower court ruling. GC Pharma argues that the Supreme Court’s handling of the case violated its constitutional right to a trial. The company said that although a related criminal case ended in an acquittal on the grounds that there was no restriction of competition because there was no substantive competitive relationship, the Supreme Court did not properly examine whether there were legal errors raised in the appeal before dismissing it without review. The court’s decision is expected to draw close attention in legal circles as the first trial appeal case. Since the revised Constitutional Court Act took effect on March 12, 525 petitions seeking to cancel court rulings have been filed. Of those, 37 were dismissed at a preliminary panel stage, and the GC Pharma case is the only one sent to the full bench. The full bench is expected to focus on how far a Supreme Court dismissal without further review can infringe the constitutional right to a trial. The Constitutional Court plans to notify the chief justice of the Supreme Court and request a response, and to seek opinions from the Fair Trade Commission and Justice Minister Jeong Seong-ho.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-28 18:05:26 -
Korean Bar Association, LAWASIA sign MOU to support 2026 Seoul general meeting The Korean Bar Association and LAWASIA said April 28 they signed a memorandum of understanding to help ensure the successful staging of the 2026 LAWASIA Seoul general meeting. The signing ceremony was held April 27 in the main conference room of the Korean Bar Association building in Seoul’s Seocho District. Attendees included Korean Bar Association President Kim Jeong-uk, LAWASIA President Yap Teong Liang and other officials from both organizations. Under the agreement, the two sides will jointly organize and promote an international conference for legal professionals across the Asia-Pacific region, recruit speakers for each session together, and work to secure sponsors to support the event. The 39th LAWASIA Seoul general meeting is scheduled for Sept. 14, Monday, through Sept. 16, Wednesday, at The Plaza Seoul and the Koreana Hotel under the theme “Global New Order - Challenges and Perspectives.” Organizers said it will be the fourth time the LAWASIA general meeting is held in Seoul and will take place in the year marking LAWASIA’s 60th anniversary. Planned events include an opening ceremony and welcome reception, practice-area sessions, networking programs and a gala dinner at the Four Seasons Hotel. Kim said the Korean Bar Association will “do its best” to prepare the opening ceremony and key events to ensure the meeting is held successfully. He added that the association will work with LAWASIA so that many Korean lawyers can take part and cooperate with legal professionals from the Asia-Pacific region and around the world. The Korean Bar Association said it will use the MOU to further strengthen cooperation with LAWASIA and make thorough preparations so the 2026 Seoul meeting serves as a venue for exchange and collaboration among legal professionals in Korea and abroad. 2026-04-28 16:42:18 -
Daeryuk Ajou Signs MOU With Small Business Federation to Expand Legal Aid Daeryuk Ajou has partnered with the Korea Federation of Micro Enterprises to provide legal support for small business owners struggling with high prices and an economic slowdown. Daeryuk Ajou, led by managing partner Lee Gyu-cheol, said it signed a memorandum of understanding on the 28th with the federation, chaired by Song Chi-young, at the Small Business Digital Center in the Dohwa-dong area of Seoul’s Mapo District. Attending from Daeryuk Ajou were managing partner Kim Jin-dong and attorney Kim Seung-jin. The federation was represented by standing vice chairman Lee Wang-jae and team leaders Jeong Yun-ho and Kim Hyo-jin. Under the agreement, the federation will identify small business owners who are closing their businesses or who have suffered from unfair trade practices and request support from Daeryuk Ajou. The firm will provide legal advice and services aimed at securing relief for those affected. Daeryuk Ajou also said it will work with the federation and its member companies to help address legal issues that arise during business operations. Kim said he hopes the agreement will provide “practical help” to small business owners in legal blind spots. “Based on Daeryuk Ajou’s professional legal capabilities, we will do our best to create an environment where small business owners can focus on their livelihoods with peace of mind,” he said. Daeryuk Ajou said it was selected this year as an operator of a legal support program run by the Small Enterprise and Market Service. The firm said it is providing legal advice and debt restructuring assistance to small business owners preparing to close, and legal support for relief efforts for those harmed by unfair trade practices. Small business owners seeking legal advice and debt restructuring related to closures can apply through the Hope Return Package website (sbiz.or.kr/nhrp/main.do). Applications for relief support, including counseling and litigation assistance related to unfair trade practices, can be made through the Unfair Trade Damage Counseling Center website (sbiz.or.kr/unfair/main.do) or by phone. In-person consultations are available by appointment with the 담당 변호사 at Donghun Tower, 8th floor, 317 Teheran-ro, Gangnam District, Seoul.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-28 16:24:07 -
Jipyeong, Criminal Procedure Law Society Hold Seminar on Attorney-Client Privilege and Corporate Legal Strategy Jipyeong Law Firm and the Korean Association of Criminal Procedure Law said April 28 they held an online and in-person seminar the previous day on corporate legal strategy in the “ACP era,” covering responses to investigations and global best practices. On Jan. 29, 2026, a revision to the Attorney-at-Law Act aimed at institutionally protecting confidential communications between lawyers and clients passed the National Assembly plenary session. It is set to take effect Feb. 20, 2027. The change is expected to codify attorney-client privilege, or ACP (Attorney-Client Privilege), which had previously been recognized only in limited circumstances through lower-court rulings. The organizers said the seminar was designed to review legal and practical issues tied to ACP’s introduction and to consider corporate response strategies. The program opened with remarks by Lim Seong-taek, managing partner at Jipyeong, and a congratulatory address by Lee Geun-woo, president of the association, followed by three presentations and a panel discussion. In the first session, Jang Pum, a partner at Jipyeong, spoke on preparations for ACP, reviewing shifts reflected in recent court decisions and outlining key requirements for privilege to be recognized. In the second, Park Seung-dae, also a Jipyeong partner, discussed response strategies for investigative and oversight agencies, offering approaches for handling disputes over whether materials qualify for ACP protection. In the third, Kim Jin-hee, a senior foreign attorney at Jipyeong, presented on overseas examples and best practices, stressing the need for Korean companies to build global-standard practices for documents, investigations and the use of AI on the premise that ACP applies. The panel discussion was moderated by Lee Sang-won, professor emeritus at Seoul National University, with participants including Lee Geun-woo, a professor at Gachon University; Park Jun-yeon, an attorney at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer; and Kim Ga-yeon, an executive at X (formerly Twitter) Korea. “An important task is to use ACP as an opportunity to advance corporate compliance management and risk-control systems and, through that, strengthen competitiveness,” Lim said. He added that Jipyeong will continue providing practical advice so companies can respond proactively to ACP legislation, including by refining internal standards and building systems to respond to investigations and probes. * This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-28 15:07:17 -
Seoul court cancels most of Netflix Korea’s corporate tax bill, citing lack of clear tax avoidance Netflix won a sweeping victory in a first-round court fight with South Korea’s tax authorities over corporate taxes. The Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 6, led by Presiding Judge Na Jin-i, ruled on Monday that 68.7 billion won of the roughly 76.2 billion won in corporate tax assessed against Netflix Services Korea should be canceled. The decision effectively found about 90% of the assessment legally unjustified. The dispute centered on large payments Netflix Services Korea made to a Netherlands-based affiliate, Netflix International B.V. (NIBV). In a 2021 tax audit, the National Tax Service said it found Netflix had sent more than 80% of its revenue earned in South Korea to its overseas headquarters as management advisory fees and content usage fees. The agency viewed that as tax avoidance that shifted domestic income abroad and reduced reported profit. Tax authorities argued Netflix Services Korea effectively exercised content copyrights, making the payments royalties subject to withholding tax. The court disagreed. It said core functions such as storing and transmitting content to South Korean consumers are carried out through a service architecture managed by NIBV. Netflix Services Korea, the court said, performs only ancillary work such as platform operations and marketing, making it difficult to view the Korean unit as the entity that directly uses copyrights to generate revenue. Based on that, the court classified the payments not as copyright royalties but as business income paid for streaming services provided by the overseas entity. Under the Korea-Netherlands tax treaty, the court noted, South Korea cannot tax such business income unless the foreign company has a fixed place of business in the country. The court also cited Netflix’s revenue-sharing structure. Netflix Services Korea is guaranteed a set operating profit margin after costs are deducted from subscription revenue, and it remits the remaining amount to headquarters. If the Korean unit posts a loss, headquarters may cover it. While tax authorities saw that structure as a way to artificially lower profits in South Korea, the court said the pricing method supports the view that the plaintiff does not independently use copyrights. The court added that even if the overseas entity had provided services directly to South Korean consumers without an intermediary, the income would still be business income outside South Korea’s taxing rights. It said it was hard to conclude that placing Netflix Services Korea in the middle was a tax-avoidance scheme designed to circumvent domestic law. Netflix did not win on every point. The court upheld corporate tax tied to Netflix’s OCA (its own cache servers) installed on domestic internet service provider networks. Netflix argued in earlier hearings that it bought the OCA equipment and transferred it to ISPs free of charge, so it should be treated as a consumable expense. The court found, however, that the OCA is used solely to provide Netflix services smoothly and remains an asset over which Netflix exercises practical control. It concluded that taxing the portion treated as an expense rather than booked as an asset was lawful. The ruling is expected to slow the tax agency’s efforts to tighten enforcement on global big tech companies. The article said Netflix generates revenue in the hundreds of billions of won in South Korea while paying corporate tax of only about 0.2% of sales, in the 3 billion won range, and that imbalance is likely to persist for now. Tax authorities said they will review the written decision closely before deciding whether to appeal. The court also expressed concern about limits in the current legal framework. In its decision, it wrote that even if low domestically realized income produces an unreasonable outcome, the issue should be addressed through arm’s-length adjustments under transfer pricing rules or through legislation. The ruling could affect tax litigation involving other global IT companies such as Google and Apple. With debate in the National Assembly active over introducing a digital tax often called a “Google tax,” civic groups are expected to keep pressing for legislative changes that redefine the concept of a fixed place of business for the digital environment.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-28 14:57:09 -
Seoul court cancels 68.7 billion won of Netflix Korea tax assessment A South Korean court on Monday ordered tax authorities to cancel 68.7 billion won ($?) of a corporate tax assessment against Netflix’s South Korean unit. The Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 6, led by Presiding Judge Na Jin-i, ruled partly for Netflix Services Korea in its lawsuit seeking to overturn corporate tax and related assessments imposed by the head of the Jongno tax office and other officials. The court ordered the cancellation of 68.7 billion won of the roughly 76.2 billion won Netflix sought to void. The panel said it dismissed the portion of the case challenging local corporate income tax assessments issued by the heads of Jung-gu and Jongno-gu in Seoul, finding there was no separate legal interest to contest them apart from the cancellation of the withholding tax collection and corporate tax assessments made by the Jongno tax office. The dispute stems from a 2021 National Tax Service audit in which the agency concluded Netflix reduced its taxable profit in South Korea by shifting a significant share of revenue earned in the country to its U.S. headquarters. The tax agency said Netflix paid more than 80% of its sales to its headquarters under items such as “management advisory fees” and “content usage fees,” inflating costs. According to Netflix’s audit report, of last year’s South Korean sales of 823.3 billion won, about 81% — 664.4 billion won — flowed to the U.S. headquarters. As a result, operating profit booked in South Korea was low, and corporate tax paid totaled 3.6 billion won, or about 0.16% of sales. The National Tax Service imposed about 80 billion won in additional taxes, applying suspected tax-avoidance grounds. Netflix won a partial reduction through the Tax Tribunal but still challenged the outcome, filing an administrative lawsuit in November 2023. In earlier hearings, Netflix argued that because the service is operated by an overseas entity, its South Korean unit served only as a reseller. It said the overseas Netflix entity has the personnel and facilities and oversees content delivery, while Netflix Services Korea only managed the company’s Korean OCA, its own caching servers. On that basis, it argued money sent from Netflix Services Korea to the overseas entity was business income, not copyright royalties. Tax authorities countered that taxation was justified because Netflix Services Korea effectively used and exercised the copyrights. The National Tax Service said Netflix Services Korea paid copyright royalties to the overseas entity and therefore had a withholding obligation. 2026-04-28 12:24:19 -
Sejong Center Chief Kim Se-jin: Full Shift Away From Middle East Is Impossible; Redesign Supply Chains “It’s time to move supply-chain management beyond cost minimization and rebuild it around ‘sovereignty risk’ in three areas: resources, routes and contracts,” said Kim Se-jin, head of the Trade and Industry Policy Center at Sejong law firm. “Instead of focusing only on where to buy cheaply, companies must factor in which country the resource comes from, which sea lane it travels through, and whether the contract will actually be honored.” A global economic shock tied to the Middle East has deepened after physical clashes involving the United States and Israel and Iran. President Donald Trump is pushing for a quick cease-fire ahead of November midterm elections, but experts say the fallout is likely to persist and could mark a structural turning point for global supply chains. Kim, a New York-licensed foreign attorney and adjunct professor at Yonsei University Law School who has also served as director of the Trade Dispute Response Division at South Korea’s Industry Ministry, discussed what he sees as the core of the crisis and how Korean companies should respond. -With the U.S.-Iran war expanding Middle East-driven economic risk, Trump says he wants fast cease-fire talks. Even if a cease-fire is reached, the impact could last. How do you view the situation? Kim said the conflict reflects a miscalculation that it would be short. He said a localized fight, pulled into an Israel-centered frame, spread into a regional war and brought to life warnings made before the fighting: a Hormuz blockade, strikes on U.S. facilities and attacks on Israel’s energy infrastructure. He said Trump is clearly rushing toward a cease-fire before the midterms because energy prices can be politically damaging and even the MAGA base is turning away. But, he added, a cease-fire would not mean the risk is over. “This war is a structural turning point in which physical resources and geographic assets that had been depoliticized for 30 years are again being used as tools in sovereignty disputes,” Kim said. He said the Strait of Hormuz has shifted from a “public good” to leverage for sovereign power; Middle East resource geography has become missile targets; and byproduct processes such as LNG and helium have become instruments of sovereign control. Kim said South Korea is among the few countries whose core industries are simultaneously exposed across many of the routes affected: Hormuz (crude oil and naphtha), Israel (97.5% of bromine used for semiconductors), Qatar (helium and LNG), and the Gulf (ammonia and aluminum). He said companies should redesign supply-chain management to embed sovereignty risk across resources, routes and contracts. -Many companies face breach-of-contract risks due to shipping delays. How likely is it that this crisis will qualify as force majeure under international commercial law? Kim said there is no one-size-fits-all answer because contract language will determine outcomes. He said a key legal dividing line is whether performance is physically impossible or merely economically unreasonable. If supply is physically cut off — such as through a Hormuz blockade or damage to Qatar’s Ras Laffan facilities — force majeure is more likely to be recognized, he said. But cases where routes remain open and costs surge, such as sharply higher insurance premiums, are harder to excuse under Anglo-American law, which generally does not treat cost increases alone as force majeure. He urged companies to review force majeure clauses and notice requirements across existing contracts and to document and preserve records of substitute procurement costs for potential recourse claims. For new contracts, he said firms should spell out scenario-based terms tied to Hormuz, the allocation of war-risk insurance costs, responsibility for any Iranian transit fees, and clear standards for when force majeure ends. “In any case, the practical benefit now is often greater in redesigning contract structures than in fighting,” he said. -War-risk insurance premiums are surging and port-entry refusals are increasing. What urgent legal steps do you recommend for shipowners and cargo interests? Kim said the most urgent step is a full review of contracts and insurance terms because a single clause can determine who pays and who can terminate. He said companies should first examine war-risk clauses in charter parties, which can allow owners to refuse dangerous routes, and noted that liability can flip depending on whether the charter is time or voyage-based. He said responsibility for additional insurance premiums also varies. While charter parties often place the burden on charterers, the ultimate allocation can change depending on whether a sale is CIF or FOB. “If you don’t sort it out now, it becomes a dispute and a lawsuit later,” he said. Kim also flagged the risk of Iranian transit fees. If Iran moves to a paid transit system, paying could violate U.S. sanctions on Iran, forcing companies to choose between breaching sanctions or breaching contracts. He said firms should check in advance whether an OFAC license from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control is required. -If a South Korean-flagged ship is seized by Iranian authorities or detained over unpaid tolls, what immediate international arbitration or legal remedies are available? Kim said several legal avenues exist, but effectiveness varies. One commonly cited option is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s prompt-release procedure. Under Article 292 of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a flag state can seek prompt release of a detained vessel upon posting a reasonable bond. He said the process is fast — in principle, a ruling within one month — and South Korea, as a party to UNCLOS, has standing. But he said enforcement is limited because Iran has not ratified UNCLOS and is likely to reject ITLOS jurisdiction. He said the most realistic tool is diplomatic negotiation, citing the January 2021 seizure by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard of the South Korean chemical tanker Hankuk Chemi. The 19 crew members were released after about a month, he said, but the ship and its captain took 95 days. He said the release reflected a mix of South Korean diplomatic efforts, progress in talks on the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, and steps by South Korea related to frozen funds. He described it as a case resolved through diplomacy before international legal procedures such as ITLOS or the International Court of Justice were activated. -Energy security has become a top management priority. For companies trying to reduce dependence on the Middle East, what alternatives look promising? Kim said a complete shift away from the Middle East is unrealistic because South Korea’s refining system is optimized for Middle Eastern heavy, high-sulfur crude and the country has long depended on the region for around 70% of its crude oil. He said diversification and stockpiling are more practical than outright replacement. As potential alternatives, he said U.S., Australian and Canadian crude are widely seen as candidates. He said the crisis also exposed the risk of relying on Qatar for LNG, and pointed to U.S.-sourced LNG projects, including Alaska LNG, which he said are emerging as a major potential use of investment funds tied to a U.S.-South Korea trade agreement, linking South Korea’s energy security with bilateral trade ties. -What specific support is Sejong providing to companies facing unpredictable geopolitical risk? Kim said Sejong formally launched its Trade and Industry Policy Center earlier this year to respond to geopolitical shocks like the current crisis. He said the center aims to go beyond legal review by integrating overseas expansion strategy, investment structures and supply-chain restructuring. He said the firm helps strategic industries — including defense, energy, shipbuilding, batteries, semiconductors and AI — manage regulatory risk across major economic blocs including the United States, the European Union and China. He said Sejong advises on supply-chain regulatory risk diagnostics, long-term contract renegotiation and force majeure responses, and designs linking policy finance with strategic investment, including deal architecture. For complex transactions such as U.S. shipbuilding investment or defense expansion, he said Sejong builds joint advisory structures with U.S. law firms to reflect both countries’ rules, including CFIUS, export controls, procurement regulations, tax and finance. “Regulation is everywhere, but the companies that read the structure of regulation first ultimately gain a competitive edge,” Kim said. He added that the Iran crisis could also open major opportunities for Korean companies, including Middle East reconstruction, LNG carriers, defense and nuclear power.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-04-28 06:12:58