Supreme Court of Korea

Core legal principles of U.S. corporate law are often met with perplexity in foreign jurisdictions. This is especially true for legal principles that are controversial even in the U.S. This Article takes the corporate opportunity doctrine and examines how it has been exported to the civil law regime in Korea. Korean conglomerates such as Samsung Group and Hyundai Motor Group have become major players in the global market, but corporate law and practice in Korea have had a difficult time keeping up with developments in the business sector. The Hyundai Motor Case demonstrates an ambitious, but ill-fated, attempt at the adoption of U.S. doctrine in Korea. This Article explains and analyzes the case and the new codified corporate opportunity doctrine rule in the Korean Commercial Code from a comparative perspective, and suggests that the dialogue surrounding the corporate opportunity doctrine in Korean legal and business communities is oriented in the wrong direction and that the new rule needs substantial refinement.

Abstract This article examines the Korean legal regime on security rights over movables and receivables, focusing on the Act on Security over Movables and Receivables enacted in 2010. The Act introduced a new registration system for security rights on movables and receivables, supplementing existing provisions in the Civil Code. While this legislation aimed to expand financing opportunities, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, its utilization has fallen short of expectations. The article evaluates the current Korean legal framework in light of international norms, particularly the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions. It analyses key aspects of the Act, including its scope, registration system, rights and obligations of parties, and enforcement mechanisms. The Act’s innovations include a unified security right encompassing movables, receivables, and intellectual property, a new registration system, clear priority rules, and provisions for private enforcement. Despite these advancements, the article identifies several areas for potential improvement: expanding the scope of grantors beyond corporations and individuals with registered business; reconsidering the five-year duration limit on security rights; exploring the possibility of adopting a notice registration system; enhancing mechanisms for preserving collateral value including the use of modern technologies; promoting private enforcement while balancing creditor and debtor interests; and addressing the relationship between the new security rights regime and the traditional security by means of transfer (Yangdodambo). The article concludes that while the Act represents significant progress in modernizing Korea’s secured transactions law, further refinements are necessary to align with international best practices and to meet the evolving needs of Korea’s financial and commercial sectors.

Abstract South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK ) and Japan have been suffering the vicious circle of serious conflicts concerning South Koreans’ tort claims. Even if two Korean emperors were compelled by Japan in 1905 and 1910, without proving the existence of customary international law prohibiting forced annexation in the early 20th century, the 1910 Annexation Treaty can not become invalid. Even if the 1910 Annexation Treaty was invalid, among other things, the 1951 Peace Treaty can be the evidence of the Japanese rule (1910–1945) being a fait accompli . Even if the Japanese rule was illegal, the issues of South Korean tort claims were already settled by the 1965 Claims Agreement and/or the 2015 Agreement. The ROK government should acknowledge its legal responsibility to satisfy South Korean claims including the so-called Comfort Women victims under the related agreements with Japan. In regard to other issues such as sexual slavery and/or Crime against Humanity, if a diplomatic solution is not available to the ROK and Japan, the two countries should better agree to submit the issues before an ad hoc international tribunal or the ICJ . This would be the only way to break the vicious circle.

International commerce facilitates abusive child labor when it offers a market for the goods produced through such practices. International trade sanctions are thus a logical avenue for confronting abusive child labor, by eliminating the commercial opportunities for such goods. However, it is not clear that domestic child labor sanctions would survive legal challenge under WTO law as currently interpreted. For international trade law to serve as a viable strategy for change, there must first be a clear theoretical and doctrinal case for the WTO-consistency of domestic child labor-based sanctions. In this chapter, we present this case, using the U.S. section 307 forced labor statute as an example. Relying on existing case law of GATT panels and the WTO Appellate Body, we demonstrate how a child labor sanction can be held consistent with the exceptions in GATT Article XX for measures protecting public morals, and measures protecting human life and health, provided it is implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. By offering a strategy for guiding domestic trade sanctions through a WTO challenge, we suggest how the full power of international trade can be deployed in the service of vulnerable children, enabling WTO members to act affirmatively against child labor practices.