We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Must-Read if You Want to Avoid Penalties and Administrative Surcharges for Violations of the Fair Trade Act
Why Do We Become Parties to Violations of the Fair Trade Act? Most violations of the Fair Trade Act begin with transactional structures that have been repeated as customary practice. Conditions that have continued for years without question often come to light unchanged during investigations. Many companies assume that the mere existence of contractual provisions shields them from legal liability. However, the Fair Trade Act assesses illegality based not on the formal agreement of the contract, but on the substantive nature of the transaction and the imbalance of bargaining power between the parties. In particular, where the counterparty is in a position of economic dependence and cannot realistically refuse the terms, the conduct may be deemed unlawful regardless of the business operator’s subjective intent. In such cases, the corporation itself and the representative who holds actual decision-making authority may ultimately become the responsible parties under the Fair Trade Act. Key Transaction Structures Targeted by the Korea Fair Trade Commission Under the Fair Trade Act, abuse of superior bargaining position may arise where a business operator is recognized as having a superior position in trade vis-à-vis the counterparty (Article 45(1)(6) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act). If direct or indirect control over pricing, transaction terms, or business operations exists, the situation has already entered a risk zone. Using a superior bargaining position to impose unfair disadvantages on a counterparty—such as by threatening contract termination or suspension of transactions—may be regulated as abuse of superior bargaining position. In particular, discrepancies between internal standards or manuals and actual operational practices themselves can serve as grounds for determining a violation of the Fair Trade Act. Accordingly, the Korea Fair Trade Commission evaluates not only formal documents such as contracts, but also actual trading practices and operational realities in a comprehensive manner. Structures that appeared to be mutually agreed upon on the surface are often interpreted as unilateral control during the course of an investigation. From This Stage, Investigation and Sanction Risks Become Real Fair Trade Act cases may begin through complaints filed by counterparties or through ex officio investigations initiated by the Korea Fair Trade Commission. Once a complaint is received or an ex officio investigation is launched, the Commission may examine transaction records and related materials concerning the alleged violation. For this reason, the response strategy at the initial stage is a decisive factor in determining the outcome. Inaccurate explanations during document submissions, poor internal document management, or inconsistent statements can become fatal grounds for adverse findings. If the degree of violation is not minor, corrective measures and administrative surcharges may be imposed. Where the violation is objectively clear and serious enough to substantially harm the competitive order, criminal referral may follow. When criminal punishment is imposed for violations of the Fair Trade Act, the dual liability provisions may apply, resulting in penalties not only for the corporation but also for its representative officers. This is therefore a matter that must never be taken lightly. How Decent Law Firm Provides Assistance Decent Law Firm works in collaboration with corporate law specialists to practically assess and respond to fair trade risks arising in the course of corporate operations. Rather than limiting our review to formal contractual terms, we focus on actual transaction structures and operational realities, providing assistance in the following ways: Preemptive risk assessments of transaction structures, contracts, and operational practices Clarification of criteria for potential Fair Trade Act violations and advisory on structural improvements Development of response and substantiation strategies for KFTC investigations Practical, industry- and company-size–specific compliance support Fair Trade Act penalties are an area where it is already too late to begin considering solutions after issues have arisen. Assessing whether current transaction practices may fall within the scope of regulation is, in itself, the most realistic and effective form of response.
-
Mandatory 'AI Content Labeling System' Starting 2026: An Essential Guide for Businesses and Marketers
With the rapid advancement of AI technology, marketing strategies utilizing virtual humans or AI-generated content have become commonplace. In response, to prevent consumer confusion and establish a sound market order, the government is set to fully implement the ‘AI Content Labeling System’ starting January 2026. This column summarizes the key aspects of the AI Labeling System—including its background, legal basis, practical labeling methods, and risks of non-compliance—that corporate marketing managers and influencers must be aware of. 1. Background: Preventing Misinformation and Market Disruption The primary reason for enforcing the AI Labeling System as a legal obligation is the surge in false and exaggerated advertisements exploiting AI technology. The "Fake Expert" Problem: There has been an increase in cases where fake doctors or experts created via deepfake technology recommend unverified products, hindering consumers' rational choices and causing financial damage. Establishing Market Order: The government has defined these practices not merely as marketing but as "acts disturbing market order." Consequently, it has mandated the disclosure of AI generation (e.g., "This content was created by AI") to ensure consumers can clearly identify the authenticity of information. 2. Legal Basis and Key Provisions The AI Labeling System is not a simple recommendation but a strong legal obligation based on the following laws: Category Key Provisions Note Framework Act on AI Effective Jan 22, 2026. Mandates labeling and notice for high-impact and generative AI services. Administrative Fines IT Network Act Requires uploaders to label AI content and imposes management/notice responsibilities on platforms. Amendment targeted for Q1 2026 Labeling & Advertising Act Regards concealing or exaggerating AI use as Unfair Labeling/Advertising. Punitive Damages In particular, the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) plans to strictly sanction AI Washing—the act of concealing the use of AI to make content appear human-created—viewing it as deceptive advertising. 3. Practical Guide: Who, What, and How to Label 1) Obligated Parties: AI Business Operators Under the law, the obligated parties are defined as "AI Business Operators." This encompasses not only AI technology developers but all business entities (corporations, organizations, and individuals) that provide products or services utilizing AI. 2) Content Subject to Labeling Generative AI Products/Services: Prior notice is mandatory when providing AI-based services such as chatbots or image generation tools. Deepfake Results: Virtual audio, images, or videos that are difficult to distinguish from reality. Advertising Content: AI-generated content for commercial purposes, such as shopping mall detail pages and influencer sponsored ads. 3) Labeling Methods and Exceptions General Principle: Must be labeled in a way that consumers can clearly recognize (e.g., subtitles, watermarks, etc.). Cultural/Artistic Exception: However, if the content qualifies as a "artistic or creative expression" and labeling would significantly hinder appreciation, flexible labeling exceptions may apply (Article 31, Paragraph 3 of the Framework Act on AI). 4. Penalties and Risks (Fines vs. Damages) Sanctions for violating the AI labeling duty are divided into administrative sanctions (fines) and civil liability (damages). ① Violation of the Framework Act on AI: Administrative Fines If an AI business operator fails to comply with the labeling duty or fails to notify the production of deepfakes, they will receive a corrective order from the Minister of Science and ICT. Failure to comply may result in an administrative fine of up to 30 million KRW. ② Violation of the Labeling & Advertising Act: Punitive Damages Beyond simple failure to label, if the act involves malicious false or exaggerated advertising (e.g., using fake experts), the Fair Labeling and Advertising Act applies. Current: Liability for damages up to 3 times the amount of damage. Proposed Amendment: The government is pushing for an amendment to increase this limit to up to 5 times to eradicate market disturbance. 5. Conclusion and Response The AI Labeling System is not a regulation saying "Do not use AI," but rather a standard of trust requiring "Transparency if AI is used." With the January 2026 implementation approaching, companies must review their internal compliance processes to prevent unnecessary legal disputes. The Corporate Law Team at Decent Law Firm provides professional assistance regarding AI and IT-related legal advisory and compliance system construction. Please feel free to contact us if you have any inquiries.
-
Key Issues in Stock Option Disputes
A Stock Option Lawyer’s Perspective Stock option disputes often turn on the exact wording of the agreement and how the terms were explained at the time of grant. In practice, a single clause—or the absence of one—can lead to disputes worth millions of dollars. Stock options usually begin as an “incentive for talent.” However, when variables such as failed IPOs, resignation or termination, or changes in company valuation arise, stock options quickly become one of the most contentious legal issues in corporate disputes. 1. Why Do Stock Option Disputes Keep Occurring? At their core, stock options are based on future value appreciation. The company promises significant rewards if it grows, and employees commit their efforts based on that expectation. Disputes arise when those expectations diverge. Growth may stall, valuations may decline, or unexpected resignation or dismissal may occur. At that point, one party often claims, “This was not the condition we agreed to.” Common causes of stock option disputes include: Vague or ambiguous contract language open to multiple interpretations Key terms explained verbally but not documented in writing or email No clear rules governing exercisability upon resignation or termination These gaps allow each party to interpret the agreement in their own favor, frequently leading to litigation. 2. Lessons from the Flex Case: Cash-Settled vs. Equity-Settled Stock Options A widely discussed case in the Korean startup ecosystem involving Flex, an HR technology company, highlights the importance of specificity in stock option agreements. The central issue was whether the options were: Equity-settled (physical delivery): Shares are issued upon exercise, or Cash-settled (difference settlement): Only the difference between the exercise price and fair market value is paid in cash Korean law explicitly allows cash-settled structures. Under Article 340-2 of the Korean Commercial Act and Article 16-3 of the Special Act on Venture Business Promotion, companies may compensate the exercise gain in cash or treasury shares equivalent to the price difference. Key legal issues a stock option lawyer examines in such cases: Explicit contractual language: Does the agreement clearly permit cash settlement? If not, courts may presume physical share delivery. Procedural clarity: Are the exercise method and payment mechanics clearly defined? Duty to explain: Did the company adequately explain the structure and risks (including tax implications), and is there documentary evidence such as emails or briefing materials? 3. Tax Risk: Why “Tax Bombs” Occur Tax issues can be as damaging as legal disputes. In many cases, tax authorities impose substantial additional assessments years after the exercise. Valuation disputes: Stock option gains are generally taxed as employment income. For private companies, determining “fair market value” is critical. Even if tax was initially paid based on a low valuation, later discovery of third-party transaction prices may lead to reassessment and retroactive taxation. Loss of tax benefits: Failure to meet venture company tax exemption or deferral requirements in advance may result in losing valuable tax incentives altogether. Without proactive tax planning, compensation can quickly turn into a liability. 4. Group Structures and M&A Complications Legal complexity increases significantly in holding company, subsidiary, or M&A scenarios. Cost allocation issues: When a parent company grants stock options to subsidiary employees, determining who bears the cost—and whether it is tax-deductible—requires careful structuring and internal agreements. IPO failure or M&A scenarios: Many employees rely on “exercisable upon IPO” clauses. If the IPO is canceled or the company is acquired, options may become worthless unless the contract clearly addresses acceleration, succession, or cash compensation. A well-drafted agreement must include a clear exit strategy covering changes in control, failed listings, and acquisition scenarios. 5. Stock Option Lawyers Start with Preventive Design Stock options are not merely an HR matter—they are a core corporate legal issue. Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team advises not only on dispute resolution, but also on preventive legal structuring. Our approach includes: Compliance review: Articles of incorporation, shareholder resolutions, statutory procedures, and registrations Precision drafting: Clear distinction between cash-settled and equity-settled options; detailed rules for voluntary resignation, involuntary termination, and disciplinary actions Contingency planning: Treatment of options in M&A, IPO cancellation, or control changes Tax risk management: Advance analysis of taxation timing and valuation risks Dispute resolution: Legal opinions, contract interpretation, and litigation support in damages claims A well-structured stock option plan and clear explanatory materials serve as proof of a company’s credibility to both talent and investors. With extensive experience from large corporations and in-house legal teams, Decent Law Firm understands internal decision-making structures and real-world business dynamics. For complex stock option issues, Decent Law Firm’s corporate law team provides clear, defensible standards.
