Shipping 2026 Comparisons

Currently, South Korea does not have dedicated maritime and shipping courts. However, discussions on the establishment of such courts have been underway since 2015. Following the recent passage of a bill on the establishment of maritime and shipping courts by the National Assembly, their creation is now regarded as a realistic possibility.

The approach most actively under consideration is that maritime and shipping courts in Busan and Incheon would each have jurisdiction over first-instance proceedings, with appeals to be heard by the high courts in the same manner as other general cases.

As of December 2025, however, no legislation establishing such courts has entered into force. In the meantime, specialised divisions exclusively handling maritime and shipping cases are in operation within the Seoul Central District Court and Busan District Court.

The most common maritime and shipping disputes in South Korea include:

• cargo claims, including claims for loss of, damage to, or shortage of cargo;
• disputes arising during vessel navigation, including collisions, groundings, and accidents occurring during berthing and mooring operations;
• disputes concerning the suspension or reduction of charter hire, including issues as to the applicability of off-hire events;
• disputes relating to shipbuilding defects, or underperformance or defects in the sale of vessels; and
• personal injury or fatality claims involving seafarers.

Port state control (PSC) in South Korea is overseen by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF), while enforcement is carried out by the regional offices of oceans and fisheries with jurisdiction over the relevant ports. These regional offices review PSC-related data for incoming vessels, including information under the New Inspection Regime (NIR), select vessels for priority inspection and conduct initial inspections.

Where deficiencies are identified during an initial inspection, the relevant regional office conducts a more detailed inspection of the vessel’s facilities and overall safety management systems prior to issuing an inspection report. If a critical deficiency is identified that may endanger the safety of seafarers or the vessel, or cause marine pollution, the vessel may be prohibited from departing until the deficiencies have been rectified.

The ship registration system in South Korea has a dual structure.

• Administrative registration: Governs matters relating to the acquisition and maintenance of a vessel’s nationality, as well as the issuance of certificates of nationality. This regime is established under the Ship Act, which sets out the requirements for Korean national vessels, the acquisition and loss of nationality, the description of vessels and the basic framework for administrative registration.
• Legal registration: Provides public notice of legal rights in vessels, such as ownership and mortgages. This regime is governed by the Ship Registry Act, which provides for the public notice of legal relations concerning vessels, including transfers of ownership and the creation of vessel mortgages.

Administrative registration is handled by the MOF, while legal registration is carried out by the courts and their registry offices.

Under the Ship Act of Korea, eligibility to own a vessel of the Republic of Korea is limited to:

• a citizen of South Korea;
• a commercial corporation established under the laws of South Korea; and
• a corporation whose principal office is located in South Korea and whose representative (or, in the case of joint representatives, all such representatives) is a citizen of South Korea.

With respect to a vessel under construction, a mortgage may be registered with the registry office having jurisdiction over the shipbuilding site. However, separate registration of a transfer of ownership is not permitted in respect of such a vessel.

The South Korean legal system does not provide for a temporary vessel registration system. That said, a limited mechanism for the grant of temporary nationality does exist. As a matter of principle, dual registration is prohibited in South Korea. Accordingly, the owner of a vessel that has lost its Korean nationality under the Ship Act is required to apply for deregistration.

The creation and registration of vessel mortgages fall within the jurisdiction of the courts. Specifically, such matters are handled by the district courts and their registry offices having jurisdiction over the vessel’s port of registry or the shipbuilding site.

To create a mortgage over a vessel, the applicant is required to submit:

• documents evidencing the cause of registration, such as a vessel mortgage agreement; and
• documents relating to the mortgage creator, including the applicant’s certificate of seal impression.

Information regarding ownership and mortgages over a vessel is publicly available. Where a third party that is neither the vessel owner nor a mortgagee seeks to obtain a copy of a vessel’s registry record, that party must attend the relevant registry office in person and submit an application including the vessel’s identification number and the applicant’s personal information. Unlike real estate registries, online issuance of such copies is generally not available.

Ship finance in South Korea is primarily conducted through loan financing led by financial institutions, with equity investment typically included as a supplementary component. Most transactions are undertaken to finance the acquisition, construction or operation of vessels, and the vessels themselves are commonly used as the principal collateral.

The key terms and conditions of such financing agreements include:

• loan amount and drawdown conditions;
• interest rate;
• repayment structure;
• events of default and acceleration; and
• collateral.

In addition to a ship mortgage, multiple forms of additional collateral are typically required. Such additional collateral commonly includes:

• security assignment over receivables (known as yangdo-dambo under Korean law) arising from charterparty agreements, insurance proceeds, freight, etc;
• the creation of a pledge over the shares of the vessel-owning company;
• the creation of a pledge over deposit accounts; and
• the transfer of rights under repayment guarantees.

In South Korea, ship leasing transactions have gradually increased in recent years. This trend is driven by stricter risk management by traditional commercial banks in ship finance, volatility in shipbuilding and shipping cycles, and increased funding needs arising from rising vessel prices and expanded investment in environmentally friendly vessels.

Chinese leasing houses have been expanding their share in the international ship finance market. In Korea, however, there are also calls for the adoption of restrictive measures against Chinese leasing companies.

In a loan structure, the borrower retains ownership of the vessel, and the lender structures its recovery through security interests such as a ship mortgage. In a lease structure, on the other hand, ownership of the vessel is held by a separate owner, with the shipping company holding the right to use and operate the vessel. While a mortgagee is entitled to priority repayment upon compulsory execution against the vessel under applicable law, compulsory execution in the event of a lease default depends on the contractual structure of the transaction.

Sale and leaseback transactions have been on the rise in Korea.

International conventions applicable in South Korea with respect to oil pollution include the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC, 1992), the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND, 1992) and the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (2001). In addition to these conventions, South Korea has enacted and enforces the Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage Guarantee Act, which is in force and governs matters related to oil pollution damage caused by oil tankers. With respect to wreck removal, the Marine Environment Management Act and the Sea Traffic Safety Act provide the legal basis for the rights and obligations of relevant parties.

South Korea applies standards for vessel navigation methods and duties of care in navigation in accordance with the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs, 1972). Certain provisions of COLREG are directly incorporated into domestic legislation in force in South Korea, including the Ship Safety Act, and South Korea’s maritime safety laws generally reflect COLREGs’ navigation rules in regulating vessel navigation.

The Commercial Act of South Korea also provides for matters relating to vessel collisions in its maritime chapter. In addition, where a vessel collision is not governed by the Commercial Act, the provisions on tort liability under the Civil Act may apply.

While South Korea is not a party to the International Convention on Salvage (1989), its principles are largely reflected in the basic framework governing salvage under the Commercial Act, which sets out key aspects of salvage relationships, including the constitutive requirements for the establishment of salvage, and the calculation methods and limits related to salvage remuneration.

South Korea is not a party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) and its 1996 Protocol. Nevertheless, the Commercial Act of South Korea establishes a regime governing the limitation of ship-owners’ liability, and the Act on the Procedure for Limiting the Liability of Shipowners sets out the matters necessary for limitation proceedings. More specifically, South Korean law provides for, inter alia, the scope of limitation, the applicable limits of liability, the constitution of a fund and related procedures.

As South Korea is a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Convention constitutes an international treaty that is applicable and binding in South Korea. Treaties that are duly concluded and promulgated have the same legal effect as domestic laws in South Korea; accordingly, the Vienna Convention operates within the South Korean legal order as a governing norm setting out the general principles of treaty interpretation. However, as South Korea is not a party to the LLMC, it is difficult to conclude that the reasoning and holdings of the UK Supreme Court in a relevant case would be applied in the same or a similar manner in South Korea.

Under the Commercial Act of South Korea, the commencement of limitation proceedings of liability may be sought by ship-owners, charterers, ship managers, operators, the general partners of corporate ship-owners, and, subject to certain conditions, ship masters, pilots, etc.

An application for such proceedings is initiated by filing an application for the establishment of a limitation fund for a vessel. The application must be supported by written materials setting out, inter alia, details of the incident, the applicable limit of liability, the grounds for the limited claims and the identities of the limited creditors. Applicants are required to prove not only the occurrence of the incident, but also that the aggregate amount of the limited claims exceeds the relevant limit of liability. Upon such application, the court may issue a deposit order directing the applicant to deposit with the court an amount equivalent to the applicable limit of liability, together with interest calculated at an annual rate of 6%. The deposit may be substituted by the submission of a deposit bond. Once limitation proceedings are commenced following the deposit, an administrator is appointed, and a reporting period and an investigation date are fixed and publicly announced. Upon commencement of the proceedings, limited creditors are, in principle, entitled to receive dividends within the scope of the fund, and the exercise of their rights against the applicant’s assets outside the fund is restricted.

The limitation of liability is calculated pursuant to the Commercial Act of South Korea, which, under separate provisions, prescribes the applicable limits of liability by reference to the nature of each claim and the tonnage of the vessel.

South Korea is a party to the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC, 2006), and the rights and safety of seafarers in South Korea are governed by the Seafarers Act and the Ship Safety Act. In particular, the Seafarers Act plays a central role in regulating seafarers’ rights and safety. It aims to guarantee the basic livelihood of seafarers by regulating matters concerning their duties, service, working conditions, employment security, welfare, education and training.

South Korea is not a party to the Hague-Visby Rules or the Rotterdam Rules. Matters relating to the carriage of goods by sea and bills of lading are governed by the Commercial Act of South Korea.

To bring an action based on a bill of lading in South Korea, a person must be the lawful holder of the bill of lading. When a carrier issues and delivers a bill of lading to the consignor, the consignor becomes the initial lawful holder of the bill of lading, and any person who can demonstrate that they have acquired the substantive rights from the previous lawful holder through an uninterrupted series of endorsements, or by other means, may exercise rights as the lawful holder of the bill of lading. However, the assignment of the title to sue alone, without the transfer of the bill of lading itself, is not recognised under South Korean law.

Under South Korean law, ship-owners are, in principle, liable for damages arising from the loss of, damage to or delay in the delivery of the goods, unless they can prove that neither they, their seafarers nor other employees of the vessel neglected to exercise due care in relation to the goods. Ship-owners may claim a limitation of liability for cargo loss or damage in accordance with the provisions on limitation of liability under the Commercial Act of South Korea. However, the extent of such liability does not differ depending on whether the ship-owner acts as the actual carrier or the contractual carrier.

The Commercial Act of South Korea provides that a consignor who enters a false or inaccurate statement in a waybill is strictly liable for any damage resulting therefrom to the carrier. At present, there is no judicial precedent in South Korea that directly addresses the misdeclaration of cargo.

The Commercial Act of South Korea provides that damage claims against a carrier arising from the loss of, damage to or delay in the delivery of goods shall be extinguished if no judicial claim is brought within one year from the date on which the cargo was delivered, or should have been delivered, to the consignee. This time bar reflects a partial adoption of the Hague-Visby Rules and is intended to ensure the swift conclusion of legal relations in marine transport. Although this period constitutes an exclusion period, it may be extended by agreement between the parties.

South Korea is not a party to the International Convention on Arrest of Ships (1999). In South Korea, ship arrest is effected pursuant to procedures for provisional attachment of vessels under the Civil Execution Act. Such provisional attachment is conceptually distinct from the independent arrest action recognised under English law. Nevertheless, under South Korean civil law, a vessel may be arrested through general civil execution and preservative procedures provided for in the Civil Execution Act.

Article 777(1) of the Commercial Act of South Korea enumerates the types of claims that give rise to maritime liens over vessels, which include the following:

• litigation costs incurred for the common benefit of creditors, taxes imposed on the vessel in connection with the voyage, pilotage dues, towage fees, and expenses for the maintenance and inspection of the vessel and its appurtenances after the final entry into a port;
• claims arising out of employment contracts of crew members or other employees of the vessel;
• salvage claims arising from maritime rescue operations and claims relating to contributions in general average; and
• claims for damages arising from collisions or other navigational accidents, damage to navigational facilities, port facilities or sea routes, and compensation for death or personal injury suffered by crew members or passengers.

Indemnities for injuries to crew members constitute claims giving rise to maritime liens over the vessel. However, as a general principle, claims arising out of a time charterparty do not give rise to maritime liens over the vessel.

Claims giving rise to maritime liens take priority over other rights over the vessel, such as ship mortgages. However, other vessel-related claims that are not expressly enumerated by law are not accorded such priority. Claims giving rise to maritime liens may serve as a strong basis for ship arrest. By contrast, where a ship arrest is sought on the basis of a general maritime claim, the existence of the claim must be established, and the requirements under the Civil Execution Act or those applicable to other preservative measures must be satisfied.

Provisional attachment is, by its nature, an execution against an obligor’s property; accordingly, a provisional attachment over a vessel requires that the obligor be the owner of the vessel subject to ship arrest. However, in the enforcement of security interests based on ship mortgages or maritime liens, the obligor’s personal liability is not determinative; rather, the key issue is whether the relevant security interest has been lawfully established over the vessel. Once a ship mortgage or maritime lien has been lawfully constituted over a vessel, neither the identity of the vessel owner nor the existence of the owner’s personal liability is taken into account. In particular, claims giving rise to maritime liens are understood as liabilities that are inseparably attached to a specific vessel. Accordingly, when a creditor exercises its rights under such a claim, the relevant vessel may be subject to enforcement regardless of whether the vessel owner bears any personal liability.

Bunker supply claims do not constitute claims giving rise to maritime liens under the Commercial Act of South Korea. Accordingly, it is generally not permitted to commence an auction immediately solely on the basis of unpaid bunker charges. In practice, bunker suppliers rarely hold direct security interests, such as ship mortgages, over the relevant vessel.

In cases of unpaid bunker charges, bunker suppliers therefore typically resort to provisional attachment as the means of effecting ship arrest. In such cases, the key requirements are whether the supplier holds a direct monetary claim against the obligor and whether the obligor is the owner of the vessel subject to arrest.

In bunker transactions, it is common for the contractual supplier and the physical supplier to be separate entities. However, the courts do not recognise standing to apply for provisional attachment merely on the basis that a party is the physical supplier; only a party holding a direct claim against the obligor is entitled to apply for provisional attachment over the vessel. In addition, where the obligor is merely a charterer and not the owner of the vessel, the vessel does not form part of the obligor’s property, and provisional attachment over the vessel is therefore not permitted. This applies regardless of whether the bunkers were used by the relevant vessel.

To effect a ship arrest, a power of attorney and supporting materials must be submitted to the court. Specifically, the supporting materials include documents evidencing the preserved rights, namely documents establishing the basis of the claim (eg, contracts, bills of lading and charterparties) and documents demonstrating the necessity for preservative measures, such as materials relating to the obligor’s financial status. In practice, it is generally sufficient to submit copies of such materials that have been notarised and apostilled or authenticated by consular legalisation. As a general rule, documents filed with the courts should be accompanied by Korean translations. However, where the matter is urgent, it is permissible to submit translations of only part of the materials on an interim basis.

In South Korea, bunkers on board a vessel are deemed to constitute independent movable property separate from the vessel and are therefore subject to provisional attachment. Moreover, freight constitutes a monetary claim and is likewise subject to provisional attachment.

In South Korea, ship arrest is permitted only where there is a direct nexus between the claim and the vessel. As a general rule, sister-ship arrest, under which another vessel is arrested, is not permitted.

In South Korea, in addition to ship arrest, creditors may apply for various preservative measures under the Civil Execution Act for the purpose of preserving their claims, including the following:

• provisional attachment over property owned by the obligor, such as real estate and movable property registered in the obligor’s name;
• provisional attachment over claims, including claims, deposit claims, freight claims and charter hire claims held by the obligor against third parties; and
• provisional disposition, which, in cases involving non-monetary claims prohibits the disposal of specific property or the transfer or creation of rights.

Options available in South Korea to interested parties for the release of an arrested vessel include the following:

• repayment of the underlying debt on the merits;
• cancellation of the provisional attachment by the provision of collateral; and
• filing an objection to the provisional attachment order.

Under the Civil Execution Act of South Korea, the court recognises the release of provisional attachment only through the deposit of “marketable securities recognised by the court”. Since a letter of undertaking (LOU) issued by a P&I club does not constitute such court-recognised marketable securities, it is not accepted by South Korean courts as collateral for the release of a vessel.

Judicial Sale Procedure

In South Korea, the sale of an arrested vessel is conducted in accordance with the provisions governing the enforcement of security interests under the Civil Execution Act. The procedure consists of the following steps:

• provisional attachment of the vessel;
• the court’s decision to commence compulsory execution;
• appraisal of the vessel and determination of the sale conditions;
• public notice of tender and bidding;
• determination of the successful bidder and issuance of a sale permission;
• payment of the purchase price; and
• distribution of the proceeds.

South Korean law does not permit the private sale of arrested vessels, and a vessel may be sold only through court-supervised auction procedures.

Vessel Maintenance During Arrest

A court-appointed administrator or the enforcement authority supervises the maintenance of an arrested vessel until its sale. The costs incurred for such maintenance are satisfied with priority from the sale proceeds.

Priority Ranking of Claims

The Civil Execution Act of South Korea sets out the general principles governing the priority ranking of distributions, and these principles apply mutatis mutandis to judicial sales of vessels. Under the Act, distribution priority follows the order of (i) costs of execution, (ii) maritime liens, (iii) ship mortgages and (iv) general claims.

Maritime liens themselves are subject to an internal order of priority, which may be briefly summarised as follows.

• First priority: Claims arising out of employment contracts of seafarers; tonnage tax, light dues and other public charges imposed on the vessel in connection with navigation; pilotage dues; and salvage claims relating to the vessel, passengers or cargo.
• Second priority: Claims for damages arising from death or personal injury caused by the navigation of the vessel.
• Third priority: Harbour dues, water dues, pilotage dues, towing fees, anchorage fees, and expenses incurred for the supervision and maintenance of the vessel at ports.
• Fourth priority: Claims arising out of employment contracts of the shipmaster, officers and other employees of the vessel.

A rehabilitation proceeding under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act of South Korea functionally corresponds to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Upon commencement of the rehabilitation proceeding, all authority over the debtor company is exercised by the court-appointed administrator, and the debtor company is prohibited from disposing of its assets, including vessels, until the rehabilitation proceeding is completed.

There is no separate statutory provision under South Korean law that expressly governs the wrongful arrest of a vessel. Accordingly, where an arrest effected through provisional attachment is found to be wrongful, liability is determined in accordance with the general principles of tort liability, provisional attachment and compulsory execution under the Civil Act of South Korea.

Where a creditor who has applied for a preservative measure, such as provisional attachment or provisional disposition, loses the action on the merits after the execution of the measure, South Korean courts presume, in the absence of countervailing evidence, that the creditor acted with intent or negligence. In such cases, unless special circumstances exist, the creditor is liable under the Civil Act of South Korea to compensate for damages causally connected to the execution of the preservative measure.

South Korea is not a party to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, and maritime passenger claims are governed by the domestic legal framework, primarily the Commercial Act of South Korea, rather than by international conventions. While the Commercial Act regulates liability for passenger carriage by sea and the carrier’s duty of safety, it does not prescribe a separate limitation period for claims arising from the death or personal injury of passengers. Accordingly, the limitation period for such passenger claims is determined in accordance with the general principles of the Civil Act of South Korea, under which a three-year extinctive prescription applies where liability is established as a tort.

The Commercial Act of South Korea limits the carrier’s aggregate liability to an amount calculated by multiplying a fixed unit amount by the number of passengers that the vessel is authorised to carry under its vessel certificate.

In addition, claims for damages suffered by passengers arising from a vessel’s collision or other navigational accidents are secured by maritime liens under the Act.

South Korean courts, in principle, recognise and enforce governing law and jurisdiction clauses stated in bills of lading. In addition, where a bill of lading contains a governing law and jurisdiction clause, and the holder acquires the bill without raising any objection, the prevailing view is that an agreement on the governing law is deemed to have been formed between the parties.

South Korean courts do not automatically regard a law and jurisdiction clause in a charter party as being incorporated into a related bill of lading. Rather, such incorporation is recognised only where certain requirements are satisfied, including:

• whether the holder of the bill of lading could reasonably have been aware of the contents of the charterparty; and
• whether the incorporation wording clearly indicates that the arbitration clause is incorporated.

In practice, there is a case in which the court has denied the incorporation of a governing law and arbitration clause into a bill of lading, even though the charterparty itself was governed by English law, on the grounds that the bill of lading contained no provision stating that the arbitration clause was incorporated into the bill of lading or that the general terms of the charterparty were incorporated therein.

South Korea is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention, 1958), and its provisions apply directly in South Korea. The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are carried out in accordance with the Arbitration Act of South Korea. However, recognition or enforcement may be refused on an exceptional basis only where one of the limited grounds for refusal set out in the Convention is established.

In practice, South Korean courts have maintained an arbitration-friendly approach and tend to interpret the grounds for refusing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards strictly and narrowly.

South Korean courts may order the provisional attachment (arrest) of a vessel even where a claim is subject to the jurisdiction of foreign arbitration pursuant to a law and jurisdiction clause. In South Korea, the issue of jurisdiction over the merits of a dispute is distinct from the availability of preservative measures, and South Korean courts therefore permit the provisional attachment of vessels or other assets located in South Korea for the purpose of preserving claims, even where foreign arbitration is contemplated or ongoing.

The primary arbitration institution in South Korea is the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), which administers a broad range of commercial and international arbitration cases. The KCAB operates a specialised institute dedicated to maritime, shipbuilding and shipping-related disputes.

Where court proceedings are commenced in breach of a foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clause, the defendant may raise an objection based on lack of jurisdiction or the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Such objections are procedural in nature, and if the court upholds the defendant’s objection, the action filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed without prejudice.

The Act on Restriction on Special Cases Concerning Taxation provides special rules for the calculation of the corporate tax base applicable to shipping companies, under which shipping companies in South Korea are subject to the tonnage tax system until 31 December 2029. The tonnage tax system was introduced in 2005 to enhance the international competitiveness of the shipping industry, and its extension has been reviewed and determined every five years.

A mere delay in the delivery of cargo, or a significant delay in loading or discharging operations, is not automatically regarded as force majeure. In general, force majeure is recognised only where certain requirements are satisfied, including:

• the relevant circumstance was unforeseeable at the time the agreement was entered into;
• the circumstance arose from an external cause beyond the parties’ control and management; and
• performance became impossible despite the taking of reasonable measures. For instance, events such as war, port closure imposed by the state or large-scale natural disasters may constitute force majeure in South Korea.

South Korea has implemented IMO 2020 and incorporated its sulphur content limits for fuel oil used on board ships into domestic law by amending the Marine Environment Management Act. Accordingly, South Korea applies the sulphur content restrictions not only to vessels engaged in international navigation, but also to vessels calling at South Korean ports or navigating within South Korea’s territorial waters or other areas under its jurisdiction.

The sulphur content of fuel oil used on board ships operating in South Korea’s maritime jurisdiction is capped at 0.5% m/m, which corresponds to the global standard under IMO 2020. Meanwhile, South Korea has enacted and implemented the Special Act on the Improvement of Air Quality in Port Areas with the aim of improving air quality in and around port areas. Pursuant to this Act, South Korea has designated emission control areas (ECAs) for sulphur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter, primarily around major ports, including Busan, Incheon and Ulsan. For vessels navigating or anchoring in such ECAs, a more stringent sulphur content limit of 0.1% m/m applies.

The primary authorities responsible for the enforcement and supervision of the IMO 2020 sulphur content limits in South Korea are the MOF and the Korea Coast Guard. In practice, compliance is regularly monitored through PSC inspections, which include fuel oil sampling, verification of bunker delivery notes (BDNs) and review of fuel changeover records. Under the relevant laws and regulations, the use of fuel oil exceeding the applicable sulphur content limits or the submission of false or inaccurate records may result in not only administrative sanctions but also criminal penalties.

South Korea has incorporated and implemented United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions agreed upon by the international community, together with the resulting trade and economic sanctions, within its domestic legal framework. However, South Korea does not currently have a single, comprehensive general law governing the overall implementation of UNSC resolutions and sanctions. Instead, depending on the nature and scope of the sanctions, the relevant authorities have given domestic effect to such measures through the enactment and enforcement of administrative rules, including public notices and directives.

In this regard, there have been ongoing calls for the enactment of a general law that would explicitly govern the domestic implementation of UNSC resolutions and sanctions, and related bills have been under discussion in the National Assembly since 2021. However, at present, it remains uncertain whether such a general law will ultimately be enacted. Meanwhile, the implementation of individual sanctions continues to be carried out primarily pursuant to existing sector-specific laws, such as the Foreign Trade Act and the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, as well as administrative measures adopted thereunder.

In response to the Russia–Ukraine war, South Korea has aligned itself with the international sanctions framework and introduced trade and economic sanctions against Russia, including financial sanctions. In particular, measures have been implemented to restrict or suspend financial transactions with major Russian financial institutions, which have had a material impact on foreign exchange transactions and cross-border payments in practice. Notably, as with other sanctions regimes in South Korea, these measures are implemented not on the basis of a comprehensive general statute, but primarily through government policy decisions and administrative measures adopted by the relevant authorities.

South Korea incorporates and implements trade and economic sanctions agreed upon by the international community within its domestic legal framework. Sanctions adopted pursuant to resolutions of the UNSC are implemented directly in South Korea through the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Act on Implementation of UNSC resolutions. Such sanctions are given effect through measures including foreign exchange controls, export and import restrictions, asset freezes and limitations on financial transactions. In addition, South Korea tends to align its policies with international sanctions regimes led by major countries and regions, such as the United States and the European Union, and accordingly operates transaction-specific regulatory and licensing regimes pursuant to relevant domestic laws, including the Foreign Trade Act and the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.

To ensure the effectiveness of international trade sanctions, administrative authorities and the judiciary in South Korea co-operate through regulatory enforcement and sanctions. In addition, South Korean law provides institutional mechanisms under which transactions that would otherwise be subject to sanctions may be exceptionally permitted through prior authorisation or exemption approvals.

No response has been provided in this jurisdiction.