We Resolve Legal Matters
How can we assist you?
Blogs
More-
Commercial Lease and Change of Use in Korea: Can the Lease Be Terminated If Business Operations Are Not Permitted?
A tenant may sign a commercial lease intending to operate a restaurant, café, convenience store, academy, or other specific business, only to later discover that the premises cannot legally be used for that purpose. This may occur because the building’s registered use does not permit the intended business, the required change of use cannot be approved, or separate business licensing requirements cannot be satisfied. In such cases, the landlord is not automatically liable simply because the change of use is unsuccessful. Whether the tenant may terminate the lease, recover the security deposit, or claim damages depends on factors such as the agreed purpose of the lease, the reason the intended business cannot operate, any contractual allocation of responsibility for permits and change-of-use procedures, and the representations made by the landlord before the lease was signed. Contents When a Change of Use Is Required What to Check Before Signing a Commercial Lease Landlord Liability When a Change of Use Is Not Possible Lease Termination and Return of the Security Deposit Damages for Interior and Business Preparation Costs Recommended Commercial Lease Clauses Frequently Asked Questions Key Takeaways on Commercial Leases and Change of Use 1. When Is a Change of Use Required for Commercial Premises? If the current registered use of a building differs from the tenant’s intended use, it is necessary to determine whether a change-of-use procedure is required under the Korean Building Act. Article 19 of the Building Act requires a building whose use is changed to comply with the building standards applicable to the intended new use. Depending on the type of change, approval, reporting, or an application to amend the building register may be required. [Article 19 of the Building Act – Change of Use] However, a change of use under the Building Act and a business-specific license or registration are separate legal issues. Even if the registered building use can be changed, the premises may still fail to satisfy requirements applicable to a restaurant, academy, or other regulated business. A prospective tenant should therefore confirm not only the current use shown on the building register but also whether the intended business can legally operate at the premises. 2. What Should Be Checked Before Signing a Commercial Lease? Before signing a commercial lease, the tenant should verify the registered use of the premises, whether the intended business can operate there, and who will bear responsibility for any change of use or licensing process. 🔹Key Checks Before Signing a Commercial Lease Item What to Check Building Register Current registered use of the premises Intended Business The specific business to be operated Change of Use Whether the required change can legally be made Building Standards Parking, fire safety, structural, and other requirements Business Licenses Whether permits, registrations, or reports required for the business are available Lease Agreement Who is responsible for permits, change of use, and related costs Special Clauses What happens if the tenant cannot obtain the required approval or operate the intended business Where a tenant is leasing premises for a specific business, it is generally preferable to state that purpose expressly rather than describing the premises only as a “commercial unit” or “store.” The purpose stated in the agreement may become an important factor if a dispute later arises over whether the premises were suitable for the intended use. 3. Is the Landlord Liable If the Change of Use Is Not Possible? If the premises cannot be used for the purpose agreed under the lease, the landlord’s contractual obligation to enable the tenant to use and benefit from the premises may become an issue. Article 623 of the Korean Civil Act requires a landlord to deliver the leased property and maintain it in a condition necessary for the tenant’s use and enjoyment during the lease term. [Article 623 of the Civil Act – Obligations of the Lessor] In Supreme Court Decision 2021Da202309, dated April 29, 2021, the lease expressly stated that the premises would be used as a convenience store, but issues relating to the building’s registered use interfered with normal business operations. The Supreme Court held that the condition in which leased premises must be provided should be determined in light of the agreed purpose and terms of the lease, and that the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises in a usable condition does not automatically disappear merely because the landlord was unaware of the relevant defect. [Supreme Court Decision 2021Da202309, April 29, 2021] However, the landlord is not automatically liable whenever a change of use is denied. Relevant factors may include: the business purpose stated in the lease; whether the landlord knew the tenant’s intended business; whether the landlord represented that the business could operate at the premises; whether the problem arises from the building itself; and whether responsibility for permits or change-of-use procedures was allocated to a particular party. The central issue is whether the premises were leased for a specifically agreed business purpose and why that purpose became impossible to achieve. 4. Can the Lease Be Terminated If the Change of Use Is Not Permitted? If the inability to change the building use prevents the tenant from carrying out the business contemplated by the lease, termination of the lease may be considered. Where the tenant has already taken possession and used the premises, however, Korean law may treat the issue as termination with prospective effect rather than cancellation that retroactively unwinds the entire contractual relationship. In Supreme Court Decision 93Da61321, dated November 22, 1994, the tenant had taken possession of the premises but could not achieve the purpose of the lease because a legal restriction prevented the necessary change of use. The Supreme Court considered the continuing nature of the lease relationship and addressed the matter as one of termination rather than retroactive cancellation. [Supreme Court Decision 93Da61321, November 22, 1994] If the lease is validly terminated, the tenant may also seek the return of the lease security deposit upon returning the premises. Disputes may nevertheless arise over unpaid rent, restoration costs, or other amounts the landlord claims should be deducted from the deposit. 5. Can the Tenant Claim Interior and Business Preparation Costs as Damages? Where the landlord has breached a contractual obligation and the required elements for liability are satisfied, the tenant may consider claiming damages for losses such as interior construction costs. Article 390 of the Civil Act provides for damages where a party fails to perform its contractual obligations in accordance with the terms of the contract. [Article 390 of the Civil Act – Damages for Non-performance] Potential losses in a commercial lease dispute may include: interior construction costs; fixtures and equipment; demolition and restoration expenses; and expenses actually incurred in preparing permits or business registrations. However, not every expense incurred by the tenant will automatically be recoverable. The tenant must generally establish the connection between the landlord’s breach and the claimed loss, as well as the amount actually incurred. Construction agreements, tax invoices, bank transfer records, receipts, and similar documentation may therefore become important evidence. Claims for anticipated profits or lost business revenue generally require additional proof and should be considered separately from actual out-of-pocket expenses. 6. What Clauses Should Be Included in a Commercial Lease? Where the premises are being leased for a specific business, the lease should clearly address what happens if the required change of use or business license cannot be obtained. Relevant provisions may address: the specific business to be operated; whether a change of use is required; which party will handle the change-of-use procedure; allocation of related costs; the landlord’s obligation to provide documents or cooperation; termination rights if approvals are not obtained within a specified period; return of the deposit or other payments; and treatment of interior construction and restoration obligations. In particular, a general provision stating that “all permits and licenses are the tenant’s responsibility” may not adequately distinguish between regulatory issues relating to the tenant’s individual business and legal restrictions arising from the building itself. Where the ability to operate the intended business remains uncertain, the parties may consider expressly addressing termination and payment-return arrangements if the necessary approvals cannot be obtained. 7. Frequently Asked Questions Q1. If the lease says the premises will be used as a restaurant, must restaurant operations necessarily be permitted? The stated business purpose is an important factor, but it does not by itself determine liability. It is also necessary to consider whether the landlord knew the intended use, why the business cannot legally operate, and how the lease allocated responsibility for regulatory approvals. Q2. Is the landlord free from liability if the landlord did not know that the change of use was impossible? Not necessarily. A landlord’s lack of knowledge does not automatically eliminate the obligation to maintain the leased premises in a condition suitable for the agreed use. Whether damages may also be claimed requires a separate review of the requirements for contractual liability. Q3. What happens if neither the landlord nor the tenant is responsible for the inability to operate the business? If the contractual purpose becomes impossible to achieve for reasons attributable to neither party, Korean rules on risk allocation in bilateral contracts may become relevant. The result will depend on why the business became impossible and on the specific terms of the lease. Q4. What should a tenant do if interior construction has already been completed but the business license cannot be obtained? Before incurring additional expenses, the tenant should determine the exact reason the license cannot be issued and whether the problem can be corrected. The tenant should also preserve the building register, lease agreement, licensing documents, interior construction agreements, invoices, receipts, and communications with the landlord before assessing termination, deposit recovery, or damages. 8. Commercial Lease and Change of Use: Key Takeaways In a Korean commercial lease dispute involving a change of use, the registered use of the building is only one part of the analysis. The business purpose agreed between the landlord and tenant is also critical. If the parties entered into the lease for a specific business but a problem inherent in the building prevents that business from operating, issues such as lease termination, return of the security deposit, and damages may arise. However, the landlord is not automatically liable simply because a change of use cannot be completed. The lease agreement, special provisions, building register, reason for the licensing failure, representations made before signing, and records of actual expenditure should be reviewed together.
-
Korea’s AI Basic Act Six Months On: Disclosure and Labeling Duties for Generative AI Businesses
Korea’s AI Basic Act took effect on January 22, 2026. Under the Act, businesses that provide generative AI products or services are subject to transparency obligations. Compliance, however, does not end with adding a notice to a service screen. The applicable legal risks depend on the AI model used, the information entered by users, where that information is transferred, and how the generated output is used. Advance Disclosure and Output Labeling Are Separate Obligations Article 31 of the AI Basic Act divides transparency obligations into two categories. First, an AI business operator intending to provide a product or service based on generative AI must inform users of that fact in advance. Second, when generative AI or an AI-powered service produces content, the business must indicate that the output was generated using AI. For example, a chatbot or AI document-generation service may need to disclose its use of generative AI through its terms of service or user interface before the service is used. Separately, text, images, audio, or video generated by the service may require an AI-generated content label. Synthetic audio, images, and video that could easily be mistaken for real content require particularly clear disclosure. In practical terms: Before use: disclose that the product or service uses generative AI. After generation: indicate that the resulting content was generated using AI. AI-Generated Content Does Not Always Require a Visible Watermark The required label does not necessarily have to be a visible watermark. The Enforcement Decree permits both: ▪️ Human-readable labeling ▪️ Machine-readable labeling Where only a machine-readable method is used, users must still be informed at least once, through text, audio, or another accessible method, that the content was generated using AI. All or part of the disclosure and labeling requirements may not apply where: ▪️ The service name or interface already makes the use of AI obvious ▪️ The AI is used exclusively for the operator’s internal business purposes ▪️ A separately issued government notice recognizes an exception The internal-use exception should be applied carefully. Materials initially generated for internal use may fall outside the exception once they are included in advertisements, customer reports, consultation materials, or other externally distributed content. Businesses should therefore distinguish between outputs that remain within the service and outputs that can be downloaded, shared, or provided to customers. Businesses Using External AI APIs May Also Be Covered A business does not need to develop its own AI model to fall within the scope of the AI Basic Act. The Act also covers businesses that use AI developed by another provider to offer AI products or services. A company may therefore qualify as an AI business operator where it connects an external large language model through an API and provides services such as: ▪️ AI chatbots ▪️ Image-generation tools ▪️ Document drafting or summarization ▪️ Automated customer consultation The key question is not who developed the underlying model. What matters is whether the company uses AI to provide a product or service to users. Businesses using third-party APIs should therefore review whether they are subject to advance disclosure and AI-output labeling obligations. Disclosure Compliance Is Only One Part of the Legal Review Generative AI services commonly send user inputs to an external AI model and return generated outputs to the user. This process may raise data protection and copyright issues that are legally separate from the labeling requirements under the AI Basic Act. 1. Personal Data Entered into AI Services Where customers or employees enter names, consultation records, contracts, photographs, or internal documents into an external AI service, the business should verify: ▪️ Whether input data is stored or used for model training ▪️ The location and country of the servers processing the data ▪️ Applicable retention periods and deletion procedures ▪️ Whether the arrangement constitutes outsourcing, third-party provision, or overseas transfer ▪️ Whether the data is retransmitted to plug-ins or other external services The legal classification should be based on the actual data flow rather than the name of the agreement with the AI provider. A privacy policy should accurately reflect how personal data is collected, transferred, retained, and deleted throughout the AI service structure. 2. Copyright in AI-Generated Outputs A business does not automatically acquire exclusive copyright merely because an image, document, video, or source code was generated using AI. Relevant considerations include: ▪️ The degree of human creative involvement ▪️ Whether the source materials were lawfully used ▪️ Whether the AI provider’s terms permit commercial use ▪️ Whether the output is substantially similar to existing protected works AI-generated content may also infringe third-party copyrights, image rights, or other intellectual property rights. Businesses using generated outputs for advertising, websites, software, games, or commercial publications should retain records of the model used, prompts, initial outputs, and subsequent human edits. AI Used to Evaluate Individuals May Qualify as High-Impact AI Not every generative AI service is classified as high-impact AI. However, additional review may be required where AI is used beyond basic drafting or guidance and affects a person’s rights, opportunities, or access to essential services. Relevant examples include AI used in: ▪️ Recruitment and applicant evaluation ▪️ Lending, credit scoring, and insurance assessment ▪️ Medical diagnosis or treatment-related decision-making ▪️ Student admission, selection, or performance evaluation For instance, an AI tool that summarizes a résumé may present a different level of legal risk from one that calculates an applicant’s probability of being hired. The assessment depends on how the AI output is used in the actual decision-making process. Where a system qualifies as high-impact AI, the operator may need to implement: ▪️ Risk-management measures ▪️ Procedures for explaining major decision-making criteria ▪️ User-protection procedures ▪️ Human management and oversight ▪️ Preparation and retention of relevant records Documents to Review Before Launching a Generative AI Service Legal review should not begin by drafting a disclaimer in isolation. A business should first map: ▪️ The AI model being used ▪️ The information entered by users ▪️ The data-transfer route ▪️ How generated outputs are used ▪️ Where human review takes place The following documents should then be aligned with the actual service structure. AI Disclosure and Labeling Notices Separate advance disclosure before use from labeling of generated outputs. Terms of Service Define the permitted use of AI outputs and procedures for handling errors, rights infringement, and user complaints. Privacy Policy Reflect the actual collection, processing, storage, overseas transfer, and deletion of personal data involving external AI providers. AI Supply Agreements and API Terms Review provisions concerning data use, cybersecurity incidents, intellectual property, service interruptions, and liability allocation. Internal AI Use Policy Establish restrictions and approval procedures for entering customer data, contracts, source code, and confidential business information into AI tools. Legal Review Based on the Actual AI Service Structure Under Korea’s AI Basic Act, generative AI transparency obligations are divided into advance disclosure before use and labeling of AI-generated outputs. In practice, however, legal risk extends beyond how a notice is displayed. Businesses should also review the use of external AI models, personal data processing and overseas transfers, rights in generated content, potential classification as high-impact AI, and the allocation of liability with AI vendors. Decent Law Firm’s Corporate Practice Group advises AI and technology companies based on their actual service functions and data flows. Our review covers the applicability of the AI Basic Act, disclosure and labeling design, privacy and copyright issues, external AI model agreements, and the legal documentation required for launching and operating AI services in Korea. This content is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any individual matter.
-
M&A Legal Due Diligence Costs and Scope in Korea: A Practical Guide
The cost of M&A legal due diligence is not simply a lawyer’s fee. It depends on the size of the transaction, the complexity of the target company, and the scope of the review itself. For foreign companies and investors entering the Korean market, understanding how legal due diligence works is critical because the findings can directly affect pricing, indemnity structures, and even whether the transaction proceeds at all. What Is Legal Due Diligence in an M&A Transaction? Legal due diligence (LDD) is the process of identifying and reviewing the legal risks of a target company before completing an acquisition or investment. In Korea, legal due diligence is typically conducted after the signing of an LOI (Letter of Intent) and before the execution of the SPA (Share Purchase Agreement). Key review areas usually include: Material contracts and commercial arrangements Litigation and disputes Employment and labor issues Regulatory compliance Intellectual property rights Corporate governance and shareholder structure Licenses and permits Subsidiaries and overseas entities The purpose is not simply to “find problems,” but to assess legal exposure that may transfer to the buyer after closing. The results of due diligence often directly influence: Purchase price adjustments Representations & warranties (R&W) Indemnification clauses Escrow arrangements Closing conditions Deal restructuring decisions What Determines M&A Legal Due Diligence Costs? There is no fixed pricing standard for legal due diligence in Korea. Costs are generally determined by several combined factors. 1. Transaction Size Larger transactions typically involve: Broader review scope Higher legal exposure Increased reporting requirements More intensive negotiation support Cross-border transactions and strategic acquisitions usually require deeper review compared to early-stage investments. 2. Complexity of the Target Company Costs increase when the target company has: Multiple subsidiaries Overseas entities Large numbers of commercial contracts Regulated business operations Complex shareholder arrangements Convertible securities, SAFE, or stock option structures Industries such as fintech, crypto, healthcare, SaaS, and platform businesses often require additional regulatory analysis. 3. Scope of Due Diligence The scope of review is one of the biggest cost variables. • Full Scope Due Diligence A full-scope review examines the overall legal condition of the company in detail. This is commonly used in: Strategic acquisitions Large-scale M&A deals Transactions involving operational integration (PMI) While more expensive and time-consuming, it can significantly reduce post-closing legal risks. • Red Flag Due Diligence A red-flag review focuses only on major legal risks that could materially affect the transaction. This approach is often used by: Financial investors Venture capital firms Early-stage investors Buyers operating under tight timelines It is generally faster and less expensive, but risks outside the agreed review scope may remain unidentified. How Are Legal Due Diligence Fees Structured? In practice, Korean law firms usually structure due diligence fees in one of three ways. Hourly Billing Fees are calculated based on: Time spent Hourly rates of lawyers involved This model is commonly used when the review scope may change during the transaction. Fixed Fee A fixed fee is agreed upon based on: Defined review scope Estimated timeline Expected workload This structure offers budget predictability but may require additional fees if the scope expands later. Hybrid Structure Many mid-to-large transactions use a hybrid model: Base scope under a fixed fee Additional work billed hourly This approach balances flexibility with cost predictability. Data Room Preparation Also Affects Costs The quality of document organization can significantly impact due diligence efficiency. Well-structured VDRs (Virtual Data Rooms) reduce: Review time Additional document requests Follow-up interviews Reporting delays Poorly organized materials often increase both costs and transaction risks. Importantly, legal advisors can only assess documents actually provided to them. Missing or incomplete disclosures may limit the scope of legal responsibility and the reliability of the review itself. Why Due Diligence Findings Matter Legal due diligence findings can materially change the transaction structure. Purchase Price Adjustments Material legal risks may justify: Lower valuations Deferred payments Escrow retention Representation & Warranty Negotiations Discovered risks are often reflected in: Disclosure schedules Liability caps Survival periods Basket thresholds Specific indemnities Deal Restructuring or Termination Serious legal issues may lead to: Changes in acquisition structure Asset deals instead of share deals Conditional closing arrangements Transaction termination Proper Scope Design Is Critical One of the most common problems in M&A transactions is starting due diligence without clearly defining the review scope. When the scope is unclear: Costs become unpredictable Timelines expand Review items continue increasing Negotiations become inefficient A properly structured process usually follows this order: Define review scope Discuss fees and timeline Execute engagement agreement Open VDR and begin review Deliver due diligence report Reflect findings in SPA negotiations Legal due diligence should not be evaluated solely based on price. The more important question is whether the legal team can accurately identify transaction-critical risks and translate them into practical deal protections. Decent Law Firm advises domestic and international clients on M&A transactions, startup investments, cross-border acquisitions, and regulatory risk analysis in Korea. If you are considering an acquisition or investment in Korea and would like to discuss an appropriate due diligence scope and fee structure, our corporate advisory team would be happy to assist.
