We do all types of litigation. I think we distinguish ourselves not only by the quality of our advice, but also by agreeing a litigation strategy with the client.

It is very easy to sue for damages or apply for an injunction, but often little thought is given to the state of affairs beyond the litigation itself. What are the client’s objectives? What do they want to achieve? What position would they like to be in after the litigation has completed? Do they have the resources – personnel and budget – to achieve (probabilistically) what they would like to achieve? This is a frank conversation we have with client before any litigation commences.

Our inbound work is extremely varied. There is no consistent theme of litigation that we receive, except that the cases tend to be foreign clients (with or without a corporate presence in Korea and, particularly, the latter) whose contract has been breached by their Korean counterpart. The cases will involve either a substantial breach of a contractual term, or non-payment, typically the latter.

We are currently representing a US nut distribution company. The company exported several million dollars’ worth of nuts to an importer company in Korea. The parties used the International Chamber of Commerce URC 522 (Documents Against Payment system).

The US exporter sent the various documents to the Korean counterparty bank, together with the products. The bank and the importer procured the release of the goods by providing various documents to a Korean government agency. The goods subsequently passed through customs.

The Korean company subsequently went into liquidation; the goods had been sold, and the US exporter received no payment from the Korean bank, which disclaimed all liability. We reported the bank and the import agent to the police. Frankly, the police did not have the willingness or expertise to properly investigate.

We issued civil proceedings in the civil court, which is now at the High Court stage: there are some unhelpful precedents. We are hopeful that we will win at the Supreme Court stage, as an adverse result will undermine the URC 522 and international trade. The case involves some very sensitive international and diplomatic issues.

We are currently actively defending several companies (including a South East Asian airline) against civil lawsuits brought by their employees. The employees are seeking to utilise the Korean Labour Relations Commission to engage in alternative dispute resolution.

This litigation largely stems from foreign companies’ lack of understanding of Korea’s pro-employee laws, which prevent termination of employment in almost all circumstances. In particular, there is a growing recognition that traditional litigation procedures can no longer effectively address the various specialised disputes that are rapidly increasing in today’s society. As a result, “administrative ADR” systems are being actively implemented.

We have provided advice and representation to various administrative agencies, including the Financial Services Commission and government-affiliated agencies, and have conducted various litigation on their behalf. This has given us a significant body of knowledge, especially in light of the expansion of administrative ADR systems.

It is considered that where one party is determined to vacillate and genuinely does not want the matter to come to a conclusion, then litigation is the only real option. Litigation can be a lengthy process: this can force their hand at an early stage.

The major dispute resolution venues in Korea are the police and prosecution if there is a criminal element to the matter. While there may not be a direct benefit to the client, this can procure an early settlement.

The other venues include the regular court system and the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (“KCAB”). The court system has three levels, namely the District Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The KCAB operates similarly to other arbitration systems. It is attempting to position itself as a major hub in Asia, particularly after the decrease in popularity (and trust) of Hong Kong.

A significant proportion of our cases have a cross-border element to them. Perhaps two main issues include the quality of the contractual documentation – many commercial matters proceed on the basis of trust; the other is the quality of evidence.

On a more practical level, it can be difficult to communicate with foreign clients, even if the common denominating language is English. Another issue might be that the local litigant (usually the defendant) is playing on their home turf, which provides a significant advantage. For example, they can ask the court for security for costs up to the Supreme Court level. This can be a very significant amount of money. It is also a substantial hurdle for the foreign client to jump over to actually make the decision to litigate in a foreign country. We attempt to provide them with the comfort to do so.

No. We have not had any ESG cases. This is not a popular area of the law in Korea right now.

The sharing of information via articles or otherwise has some indirect value. More information can provide differing and interesting insights.

Conferences at which participants are able to network are particularly useful. There is an immediate exchange of ideas. The attendees can immediately develop a connection and determine whether there are any potential business opportunities: it is easier to maintain an existing client than to have to keep finding new clients.

In modern society, disputes are becoming increasingly specialised and complex. As a result, even judges with extensive legal knowledge and experience may find it challenging to resolve all legal disputes in a way that satisfies the parties involved. In addition, Korea has seen a rapid increase in administrative ADR, wherein administrative agencies directly – or through affiliated organisations – take the lead in dispute resolution.

To effectively respond to this administrative ADR’s operational structure and functioning, it is crucial to have extensive experience in understanding how these agencies derive their decisions. Furthermore, a deep understanding and expertise in administrative law, as well as the judiciary’s legal policies, is essential.

We have gained valuable experience in these transient judicial structures by participating in activities with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board, the Financial Supervisory Service’s Financial Review & Sanction Committee, the Korea Consumer Agency’s Committee, as well as the Legislative Affairs Office’s Legislative Interpretation Review Committee. We have, therefore, been able to establish ourselves in this field.

Legal professionals review contracts and conduct litigation. Within this fundamental role, we always keep our clients’ objectives in mind. Rather than getting caught up in niceties and focusing solely on the execution of tasks, we devote ourselves to understanding the ultimate objectives our clients wish to achieve throughout the entire process.

For this reason, in addition to providing legal advice and litigation services, we actively engage in coordination activities with various committees and pursue administrative and constitutional lawsuits concerning the interpretation of laws.

The accumulation of these experiences and time has shaped our expertise – and we take pride in being highly competent professionals capable of addressing disputes that arise both within and across borders from a base in Korea.