Ask Korea Law

Published by Chung & Partners since 2008


Leave a comment

Rights of a Criminal Suspect during the Korean Investigation Procedures – Self-Advocacy Note Presented by the Seoul Bar Association

The Seoul Bar Association has recently issued a Self-Advocacy Note for the use of any criminal suspect under the Korean investigative procedures.  Before this being issued, the National Human Rights Commissions had recommended the police and the prosecutors to guarantee the criminal suspects’ right to take notes.  Although this may sound weird to some from other countries, the Korean police and prosecutors have been prohibiting the suspects to take their own notes during the interrogation.

This Self-Advocy note is prepared in order to help any suspect inducing a foreign suspect to fully understand and examine his/her statutory rights to self-advocacy before and during the investigative procedures. You can download it at the homepage of the Seoul Bar association or by clicking here.

This also contains a good explanation of the overall investigative procedures under Korean law.  Below is quoted from the English version of Self-Advocacy Note which explains about the Criminal Investigative Procedures in Korea.  It should be greatly appreciated that Continue reading


Leave a comment

Provisional Attachment of Assets under Korean Law – How to Secure Your Monetary Claim in Korea

Let’s assume a creditor has a monetary claim against a debtor in Korea but the debtor refuses to pay it.  The creditor would proceed to file a lawsuit to get a judgment to collect his claim.  Unfortunately, however, the chances are that, knowing the complaint was filed, the debtor would try to conceal or transfer his assets to evade from the judgment to be made later.  This shows why provisional attachment is highly required to secure the judgment to be obtained.

Provisional attachment is a judicial measure available to anyone who has a monetary claim to lock down certain assets to keep the debtor from selling or giving them away until the court issues a judgment on the merit. The creditor can, and usually does, seek a provisional remedy before she files a complaint on the merit.  So, this is a very powerful weapon for the creditor.  For example, as many Korean creditors do, if the creditor succeeds in putting a provisional attachment on the debtor’s bank account, the debtor would not be able to use the money and could face several penalties regarding its banking/financing transactions with the bank.  This could heavily deteriorate the ability for a small com­pany to con­duct business, which makes the debtor Continue reading


3 Comments

How to Cope with Harassment or Stalking under Korean Laws

Recently we got a question from a foreigner.  She was wondering if she could take any legal action against her Korean ex-employee who harassed her by spreading false information about her and telling the customers not to do a business with her.

From a perspective of Korean Criminal law, currently there is no general legislation on regulating the harassment or stalking.  The respective laws have its own regulations on which behavior constitutes a certain crime and what remedies the harassed party is entitled to seek.

Generally speaking, a person who defamed another by publicly alleging facts (false or even true) shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than 2 years or by a fine not exceeding five million won according to Criminal Act of South Korea.

Notably, any person who sends out letters or text messages inflicting fear or apprehension to another person repeatedly shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or Continue reading


Leave a comment

Samsung Set To Appeal $2.4 Billion Repayment Ruling

In January 31, the Seoul Central District Court ordered the Samsung Group to repay more than 2.33 trillion won ($2.46 billion) to the 14 creditors of its defunct Samsung Motors, which was the country’s biggest-ever financial civil lawsuit.  Samsung Group said yesterday that it will appeal that court ruling.

Samsung Motors applied for a court-administered debt restructuring program in June 1999, and Chairman Lee Kun Hee announced his plan to inject private money. Two months later, Samsung signed a deal with the creditors to cover a 2.45 trillion won debt by the end of 2000. Under the agreement, Lee handed over his 3.5 million shares of the unlisted Samsung Life Insurance Co. to the creditors and promised to list the company. However the insurance firm never went public, and creditors were unable to convert all their share to cash due to the large volume. Creditors filed a lawsuit in December 2005, claiming 5 trillion won including penalties.

One of the biggest issues on this trial was the validity of the agreement between Samsung Group and the creditors. Samsung Group alleged that the agreement is void because it was entered under duress. However the court rejected it.

As I’m a lawyer, it was very interesting who would represent Samsung Group and the creditors. There Continue reading