Case Analysis / Legal Updates

The issue in this case, which was handled by a tax attorney, was whether the operating fees for a refund counter constituted financial services exempt from value-added tax. The Supreme Court held that the exemption provision could not be extended to a refund-agency structure that lacked the essential elements of money lending. (Supreme Court, Decision of January 15, 2026, 2023 Du 45507)

This case concerned whether a performance bonus paid by a private company constitutes wages under the Labor Standards Act. On this point, the Supreme Court set out the standard that whether a bonus has the character of wages must be determined not by its name but by its purpose of payment, calculation criteria, and payment structure. (Supreme Court, Decision of January 29, 2026)

A shaman who committed a crime involving gaslighting was sentenced to life imprisonment. In recent cases, the courts have tended to take into account a victim's vulnerable condition in sentencing where so-called gaslighting, meaning repeated psychological domination, appears as part of the background or method of an offense.

This case concerned the extent to which a company that acquired a business through an auction or asset-purchase structure succeeds to the environmental liabilities of the former operator. This judgment is a Supreme Court determination that limited, in accordance with the constitutional principle of personal responsibility, the scope of the public-law obligations attributable to the acquirer of a business site. (Supreme Court, Decision of January 15, 2026, 2023 Du 62830)

Technology leakage affects the competitive structure of an industry and the investment environment, and when the response is inadequate, it can impose a long-term burden on a company in the form of lost transaction opportunities and a decline in credibility.

When AI security is inadequate, the use of artificial intelligence itself can operate as a major channel for data and technology leaks. To protect a company's future sources of revenue, it is time to pay attention to the control of AI use as well.

Amid the controversy over the tax evasion allegations, varying interpretations of the scale of income have been spreading. The essence of the tax evasion allegations lies in the structure through which the income was attributed and whether there was intent in that process.

In a case where minority shareholders, having satisfied the requirements for a shareholder derivative suit under the Commercial Act, challenged the unlawful and improper conduct of business by the company's former and current officers, the Supreme Court found that the determination of the representative director's and directors' breach of the duty of oversight and the review of the scope of damages were insufficient, and it reversed and remanded the case in part. (Supreme Court, Judgment of January 15, 2026, 2024 Da 305421)

In a technology leakage case, a judgment held that "even if a finished product was not manufactured, the technology may be deemed to have been used if it reduced development time and cost." This calls for shifting the control of data access by partner companies, former employees, and outsourced personnel into a central task of corporate compliance. (Supreme Court, Decision of September 25, 2025, 2022 Do 7718)

This case, in which a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act was at issue, involved the leakage of core technology of the domestic semiconductor industry to an overseas competitor. It is a final judgment of the Supreme Court that comprehensively assessed the scope of trade secret protection, the legal character of jointly developed technology, and the criteria for attributing criminal liability to individuals and corporations. (Supreme Court, Decision of June 12, 2025, 2024 Do 17294)

In this case involving a violation of the Foreign Trade Act, the court found that the representative of a defense contractor, who was a former navy commander, and numerous other defendants had transferred strategic technology relating to submarine torpedo launch tubes to Taiwan without the export permit of the Administrator of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, and it determined this conduct to be a crime that seriously infringed on national security. (Changwon District Court, Decision of December 16, 2025, 2022 Godan 1320)

A franchise margin fee is not a cost that a franchisee must bear as a matter of course when it is not provided for in the contract. This judgment made clear that a franchise margin fee can become the subject of a dispute.