The past year has been unusually active for dispute resolution in Korea. The most important developments concern attorney-client privilege, constitutional review of final court judgments, arbitration rules, and corporate-governance reforms that are likely to generate more shareholder and board-level disputes. We shall update the reader when more is known. Please check back often.
- Attorney-Client Privilege in Korea
Korea has taken a major step toward statutory attorney-client privilege. On January 29, 2026, the National Assembly passed an amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act of Korea introducing a new Article 26-2. The amendment recognizes a right not to disclose confidential attorney-client communications exchanged for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. It also protects certain attorney work product prepared for litigation, investigations, or inspections. The reform is scheduled to take effect one year after promulgation. Its practical scope remains to be tested, including its application to in-house counsel, communications involving third-party consultants, implied waiver, and the statutory exceptions for client consent, significant public interest, attorney-client disputes, and other laws requiring disclosure.
2. Attorney-Client Confidential Information in Criminal Cases in Korea
The Supreme Court of Korea issued an important decision on attorney-client confidentiality in criminal proceedings. Many civil cases also lead to criminal filings.
In Supreme Court Decision 2024Mo730, decided on February 20, 2026, the Court held that seizure of legal advice and defense-strategy materials exchanged between a suspect or defendant and criminal defense counsel may infringe the constitutional right to assistance of counsel. The decision is significant because it gives constitutional weight to confidentiality in criminal defense communications, separate from and in addition to the statutory amendment to the Attorney-at-Law Act. The decision is likely to affect search-and-seizure practice, internal investigations, dawn raids, regulatory investigations, and disputes involving privileged materials.
3. Korean Constitutional Court Act Amendment
Korea amended the Constitutional Court Act of Korea to permit constitutional complaints against final and conclusive court judgments in defined circumstances. This is a major institutional change. Historically, court judgments were excluded from constitutional complaint review. The amendment creates a potential constitutional review route after ordinary appeals are exhausted. The reform is expected to affect constitutional litigation strategy and may create additional post-judgment proceedings, particularly in cases involving due process, fundamental rights, or alleged departures from Constitutional Court precedent. The practical limits of this new mechanism will depend on how strictly the Constitutional Court screens petitions and how it defines the permissible grounds for review.
4. Arbitration at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board
The KCAB revised its arbitration rules. The revised KCAB Domestic Arbitration Rules took effect on March 1, 2025. The revised KCAB International Arbitration Rules took effect on January 1, 2026 and apply to KCAB international arbitrations commenced on or after that date, unless the parties agree otherwise. Important changes include the establishment of the KCAB International Arbitration Court, greater institutional authority over appointments and challenges, consolidation, costs, and other procedural matters, and modernized procedures for international arbitration practice.
Korean courts and lawmakers have continued to support an arbitration-friendly approach. Korean Supreme Court case law has recently shown a willingness to uphold arbitration agreements where the parties’ intent to arbitrate is sufficiently clear, even if the clause contains drafting defects or inconsistencies. The practical lesson is that Korean courts are reluctant to defeat an arbitration agreement solely because the clause is imperfect, provided the parties’ objective intent to arbitrate can be identified.
5. Corporate Governance
Corporate-governance reform is likely to affect dispute patterns. In July 2025, Korea amended the Commercial Act of Korea to expand directors’ duties in relation to shareholder interests. Additional amendments passed in August 2025 strengthened mechanisms affecting audit committee elections and minority shareholder representation. These reforms are likely to increase shareholder litigation, board disputes, challenges to restructurings, derivative actions, and disputes involving controlling-shareholder conduct. Further proposals concerning treasury shares have also been discussed, and these may create additional litigation risk if enacted.
6. Korean Franchise Law
The Supreme Court’s January 2026 Pizza Hut Korea franchise-fee decision is significant for franchise and distribution disputes. The Court required the return of undisclosed differential franchise fees where there was no specific agreement authorizing their collection. The case is likely to influence franchise-fee disclosure, unjust enrichment claims, and disputes over supply margins in franchise systems.
7. Korean Trade Secrets
Trade secret and technology-leakage disputes remain a major enforcement priority. Recent Supreme Court authority has clarified that acquisition, disclosure, and use of trade secrets may be treated as distinct punishable acts rather than a single continuous offense. This is significant in civil and criminal strategy because trade secret disputes in Korea frequently proceed on parallel civil and criminal tracks.
by Sean Hayes
Sean Hayes is the first non-Korean attorney to have worked for the Korean court system (Constitutional Court of Korea) and one of the first non-Koreans to be a regular member of a Korean law faculty. He assists clients in their contentious, non-contentious, and business development needs in Korea and China.
To schedule a call with Sean Hayes, please Schedule a Call Here.