“Hello, I am a U.S. citizen working for a Korean listed company. Recently my company sent me a dismissal notice saying I had breached the employment contract by leaking their confidential information. Informations at issue are a set of sale/purchase statements of the company. I downloaded those informations from the company’s server to my personal email account. But, there has been no warning mark of confidentiality. My other colleagues have a free access too, and the information sometimes was provided to our suppliers. Did I really breach the confidentiality of my Korean employer?”
Leaking employer’s confidential information could result in a termination of the employment contract. The legal issue, however, still remain whether or not the information can be regarded as a confidential information.
Most employers in Korea have their own rules of employment which state what is a confidential information. And even an employment contract could list a set of confidential informations which the employee should not disclose to 3rd parties. But, defining what is a confidential information is a matter of law and, therefore, the Korean court does not always follow the definition which an employer had been set in their internal documents.
The Korean court has well-established precedent that the confidential information should be (more…)
When a foreign incorporated company does a business in Korea, it is very fundamental to determine whether the company is a domestic or a foreign corporation for Korean tax purposes. A major difference in tax liability is that, in principle, a foreign corporation is liable for taxes only on the incomes generated in Korea rather than a worldwide income.
In this regard, the Corporate Tax Ac of Korea(“CTA”) defines a “domestic corporation” as a corporation with its headquarter, main office, or actual business management place located in Korea, and a “foreign corporation” as an organization which has its head office or principal place of business in a foreign country. What makes distinguishing domestic corporation for a foreign corporation under CTA difficult and challenging is the meaning and application of the term of “actual business management place” set forth in CTA. For example, in a case decided by the Supreme Court of South Korea in 2016, a Singapore incorporated company had challenged the Korean tax authority’s decision that its actual business management place was in Korea.
The Singapore company had a wide variety of international business portfolio and among them was a trading foreign issued corporate bonds including a Korean corporate bond. The Korean tax authority decided that the company’s actual business management had taken place in Korea after finding the facts that the company had a liaison office in Korea, one of the directors was residing in Korea and financial documents relating to the Korean business was stored and managed in Korea. And this (more…)
Question) I am an American expat working in South Korea. Originally I was working for a U.S. company incorporated in the state of New York, but 3 years ago I was seconded to the Korean branch of my U.S. company, and have been working for the branch until now. When I was seconded, my new employment contract provided that the New York state law shall apply to my employment relation in Korea. Now, my employment contract is expiring and I would like to know whether I am entitled to the severance pay under the Korean labor law. I know my employment contract and my company’s policy do not provide the right to severance pay. But, as I have been working in Korea for 3 years, I am wondering if the statutory rights of severance pay under the Korean labor law could be given to me.
Answer) The answer is Yes. Expats are entitled to severance pay under the Korean labor laws. (check here as to how the severance pay under Korean law is recognized and operates)
This answer could sound quite surprising considering the fact that the parties had previously agreed (i) the Korean labor should not apply and (ii) the severance pay should not be awarded. How come the Korean labor law intervenes in the parties’ employment relation? The answer lies in the provisions of the Private International Act of Korea which provides the general principles for the choice of law in Korea.
When a legal relation has certain foreign elements, the court must decide which jurisdiction’s law shall apply to interpret that legal relation. In Korea, the Private International Act provides the general rules and principles for the governing laws of the various types of legal relations. Specifically, the Act provides that if the employer and employee agree, the employment contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties. But, this does not mean the parties can freely determine which law and regulations apply to their employment relation. It is true in Korea that the party autonomy is a general principle of governing laws, but party autonomy is subject to limits imposed by the overriding public policy and mandatory rules.
In April 2013, attorney Mr. Wonil Chung successfully obtained a Supreme Court’s ruling which overturned lower court’s decision in connection with the sponsored links, Internet keyword advertising services, operated by Overture Services Inc., a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary of Yahoo! Inc. Before this ruling from the Supreme Court of South Korea, there had been an increased controversy over whether Overture system user’s deployment of an automated program to access to the sponsored links could fall into a crime causing a harm to the Internet network system. In this case, attorney Mr. Chung argued before the Supreme Court of South Korea that it cannot constitute a statutory crime, otherwise the result would be an over-reaching of Korean criminal statute and cause an excessive chilling effect on the free access to the Internet. Responding to Mr. Chung’s arguments, the Supreme Court of South Korea held that it does not constitute a statutory crime of interference with stable operation of the Internet network. With its ruling, the Court struck down the prosecutor’s attempt of excessive criminalization and reinforced online service user’s right of free and unrestricted access to the (more…)
A distributor from the U.S. entered into a distributorship contract with Korean supplier (exporter) for certain goods. Of course, the U.S. distributor was thinking to resell the goods in U.S. market for a markup. But the problem broke up after the contract was duly singed and executed. With no reason, Korean supplier suddenly refused to sell the goods and rescinded the contract. Due to this unexpected turmoil by the foreign supplier, the U.S. distributor could not properly perform the reselling deals with the local warehouse stores, which the distributor had thought very lucrative. There would be no doubt that the act of Korean distributor constitutes a breach of distributorship agreement. But, the U.S. distributor did not pay anything, yet. The only loss they encountered was they lost a good deal with 3rd party by reason of the Korean supplier’s breach of contract. Now, the U.S. distributor tries to recover damages and loss of profits from the supplier in Korea which they suffered from the failure of the reselling deal with the local warehouse stores. In this case, can the U.S. distributor prevail in Korean court and under Korean law?
The key legal issue would be whether the Korean supplier knew of the fact that the distributor had completed their negotiation with 3rd party for the resale agreement. According to the ruling from the Supreme Court of South Korea, if the supplier knew of the fact, the supplier is liable for the distributor’s loss relating to failure or non-performance of the resale agreement with 3rd party. By contrast, (more…)
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 liability under judgment. This shows why provisional attachment is highly required to secure the judgment effectively.
Provisional attachment is a judicial measure available to anyone who has a monetary claim to lock down certain assets. It, depending on the type of court order, prevents the debtor from selling assets or enables the creditor to secure his interest in the debtor’s asset regardless of the sale by the debtor, 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 (more…)
I got a question from a U.S. citizen who lives in an apartment in Seoul, Korea. He had serious noise problem caused by wind pushing against a large metal sheet tunnel located above his apartment. Not settling with apartment management office, he asked me what his legal rights under the Korean law are.
Generally speaking, if the noise from the building’s metal sheet tunnel exceeds the limit that any ordinary person can stand(hereinafter the “Limit”), it constitutes an unlawful act under Korean law and the construction company shall make compensation for the damages arising therefrom.
Therefore, the key issue in this kind of case is whether the noise exceeds the Limit. If it (more…)
For the first time in Korean history a jury sit in on a trial. The Daegu District Court heard a case on Tuesday(February 2) involving a man charged with robbery who requested a jury’s presence.
Under the Korean law, the jury serves in an advisory capacity, and their decision won’t be legally binding as the judge will make the final decision(That is different from the U.S. jury system where the juries deliver verdicts, while judges decide on sentences). Also the Jury trial is not applied to all criminal cases. Only some restricted cases such as murder and robbery can be proceeded under jury trial by the request of the (more…)