International Trade 2026 Comparisons

South Korea is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and a party to the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and the Information Technology Agreement.

South Korea is party to the following bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements (FTAs):

• Korea-Chile FTA;
• Korea-Singapore FTA;
• Korea-EFTA FTA;
• Korea-ASEAN FTA;
• Korea-India Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA);
• Korea-EU FTA;
• Korea- Peru FTA;
• Korea-US FTA;
• Korea-Türkiye FTA;
• Korea-Australia FTA;
• Korea-Canada FTA;
• Korea-China FTA;
• Korea-New Zealand FTA;
• Korea-Vietnam FTA;
• Korea-Colombia FTA;
• Korea-Central America FTA;
• Korea-United Kingdom FTA
• Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (RCEP);
• Korea-Israel FTA;
• Korea-Cambodia FTA;
• Korea-Indonesia CEPA; and
• Korea-Philippines FTA.

The following agreements were concluded but have not yet entered into force:

• Korea-UAE CEPA;
• Korea-Ecuador FTA;
• Korea-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) FTA;
• Korea-Geogia CEPA; and
• Korea-Malaysia FTA.

South Korea has provided Bangladesh and Laos with a preferential arrangement under Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA).

South Korea is negotiating comprehensive economic partnership agreements with Thailand, Mongolia, Bangladesh and Serbia. South Korea is also negotiating with India, Chile and the United Kingdom to improve the FTAs with these countries.

The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies entered into force in September 2025. South Korea has regulated and prohibited subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing under the Agreement pursuant to the amended Fisheries Act.

In respect of digital service trade policy, an Online Platform Act has been proposed in South Korea. However, global tech companies raised concerns about discriminative measures introduced under the proposal.

The primary legal and administrative acts governing customs matters in South Korea are as follows:

• the Customs Act – this is the principal statute that provides the legal framework for all customs matters, including the imposition and collection of duties, customs clearance procedures and the enforcement of customs regulations; and
• the Act on Special Cases of the Customs Act for the Implementation of Free Trade Agreements (the “FTA Implementation Act”) – this act stipulates the procedures for applying preferential tariff rates and customs clearance procedures under the various FTAs.

The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MOEF) is the primary administrative authority responsible for setting customs policies and tariff rates.

The Korea Customs Service (KCS) is the government agency that administers and enforces customs laws and regulations. Operating under the supervision of the MOEF, the KCS has a wide range of functions, including:

• assessing and collecting customs duties, internal taxes and other charges on imported goods;
• managing the customs clearance process for imports and exports;
• preventing and investigating customs-related crimes such as smuggling, tariff evasion and intellectual property rights infringement;
• administering the country-of-origin rules and applying preferential tariff rates under FTAs; and
• supervising ports, airports and bonded areas.

The KCS has its headquarters in Daejeon and operates several regional customs offices at major ports and airports throughout the country.

In South Korea, there are no legal instruments similar in nature to the EU’s Trade Barriers Regulation or to Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. South Korea primarily addresses the negative impacts of foreign trade practices through its trade remedy system, governed by the Customs Act.

The investigative body responsible for these matters is the Korea Trade Commission (KTC). The KTC conducts investigations into the existence of dumping, subsidisation and intellectual property-infringing practices, determines the presence of injury to domestic industries and may impose trade remedies or recommend sanctions to other relevant government agencies.

Domestic companies may file petitions to initiate KTC investigations on an ad hoc basis. Foreign companies and governments are also afforded procedural rights to participate in the investigation, including opportunities to submit questionnaire responses, comments and briefs.

The KTC publishes detailed reports of its findings, which are made publicly available on its website. The KTC recently launched a monthly Trade Remedy Brief, providing ongoing updates and summaries of significant cases and policy developments.

Over the past 12 months, South Korea has adopted legislative reforms to strengthen sanctions against customs evasion and reinforce the effectiveness of duty collection; the specifics follow.

• Penalties for customs evasion have been heightened: The statute of limitations for imposing duties on undeclared imports has been extended from five to seven years (Article 21(1) of the Customs Act). In addition, the surcharge rate for underpayment of duties caused by fraudulent acts has increased from 40% to 60% under both Article 42(2) of the Customs Act and Article 36(1) of the FTA Implementation Act.
• The effectiveness of customs duty collection has been enhanced by expanding the scope of entities required to provide tax-related information to the customs authority, including virtual asset service providers (Article 264-2(7) of the Customs Act).

Additionally, starting on 14 April 2025, the KCS conducted a 100-day nationwide inspection on 25 import items – including H-shaped steel and plywood – to curb circumvention of anti-dumping (AD) duties.

A significant development expected to shape Korea’s customs and trade-remedy landscape is the establishment of an AD co-operation framework between the KCS and the KTC. Under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed in September 2025, the two authorities agreed to launch a standing Anti-Dumping Consultative Body to share key issues on AD measures and develop joint strategies to enhance the effectiveness of AD duties.

Given this institutionalised co-ordination mechanism, closer collaboration between the KCS and the KTC is anticipated in the coming year, particularly in relation to monitoring circumvention and ensuring the full enforcement of AD duties at the border.

South Korea operates a multilayered sanctions framework that encompasses financial and economic restrictions, entry prohibitions, and controls over air and maritime activities.

The sanctions regime in South Korea is largely designed to implement United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs), to which South Korea is legally bound. Additionally, South Korea may impose its own autonomous sanctions, often in co-ordination with international partners like the USA and the EU.

The sanctions regime is implemented through multiple legislative instruments:

• the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (FETA) and the Act on Prohibition against the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (the “Terrorism Financing Prohibition Act”), which establish the legal foundation for financial and economic restrictions; and
• the Customs Act, Immigration Control Act, Coast Guard Affairs Act, Aviation Safety Act and Act on Arrival and Departure of Ships, which provide the statutory basis for implementing entry bans, aviation restrictions and maritime controls.

The Act on Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation governs specialised limitations regarding trade with North Korea.

Several government agencies are involved in administering and enforcing South Korea’s sanctions regime.

• MOEF is the principal authority for economic and financial sanctions. It is responsible for designating persons and entities for sanctions, implementing asset freezes and issuing licences for otherwise prohibited financial transactions under the FETA.
• The Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the Bank of Korea: These agencies supervise financial institutions to ensure their compliance with sanctions-related obligations as part of their broader anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) responsibilities.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA): MOFA is responsible for the overall co-ordination among government agencies in matters related to sanctions.

South Korea’s sanctions framework extends to all individuals and organisations falling within its jurisdictional scope; specifically:

• all Korean nationals, irrespective of their physical location; and
• all entities and individuals within Korean territory.

Nevertheless, certain sanctions provisions may extend beyond territorial boundaries to encompass foreign nationals, consistent with established principles of criminal jurisdiction. For instance, Korean sanctions may apply to criminal acts perpetrated abroad targeting Korean citizens or governmental interests, or to foreign exchange activities demonstrating a Korean connection, such as transactions involving Korean residents or national currency.

South Korea maintains lists of sanctioned persons and entities. In addition to FETA and the Terrorism Financing Prohibition Act, the Regulation on the Designation of Persons as Subject to Financial Transaction Restrictions and the Revocation of Such Designation (the “Regulation on the Designation”) specifically governs financial sanctions in South Korea.

Modifications to financial sanctions lists are executed through formal amendments to the Regulation on the Designation.

South Korea enforces comprehensive sanctions targeting North Korea pursuant to the Act on Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation, primarily aligned with various UNSCRs. These restrictions effectively constitute a comprehensive embargo encompassing commercial trade, financial transactions and capital investment.

Additionally, under Article 5 of the Foreign Trade Act and the Public Notice on Special Trade Measure for Implementation of Obligation for Maintaining International Peace and Security (the “Public Notice on Special Trade Measure”), specialised trade controls are operated to discharge international peace and security obligations:

• regulatory measures governing rough diamond commerce under the Kimberley Process framework; and
• targeted measures applicable to conflict-affected territories and nations, including Iraq, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of the Sudan, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, North Korea and South Sudan.

South Korea maintains comprehensive sanctions against North Korea, primarily in accordance with various UNSCRs. These measures constitute a near-total embargo on trade, financial transactions and investment (see 3.6 Sanctions Against Countries/Regions).

South Korea does not apply secondary sanctions. The jurisdiction of its sanctions and export control laws is primarily linked to activities with a clear nexus to South Korea, such as actions by Korean nationals and entities or transactions occurring within its territory.

However, the government actively advises Korean companies to be aware of and comply with third-country sanctions, particularly those of the USA.

Breaches of South Korea’s sanctions framework result in both criminal prosecutions and administrative sanctions. Under the Terrorism Financing Prohibition Act, which regulates financial sanctions, potential enforcement consequences include:

• criminal penalties – imprisonment or fines (Article 6 of the Terrorism Financing Prohibition Act); and
• administrative monetary penalties (Article 7 of the Terrorism Financing Prohibition Act).

Authorisation mechanisms exist to permit activities that would otherwise fall under prohibition:

• the FSC possesses discretionary authority to grant specific authorisations evaluated on an individual basis; and
• the Bank of Korea holds authority to approve foreign exchange transactions for persons designated under financial sanctions pursuant to FETA.

With respect to lists of financially sanctioned individuals and entities, organisations may refer to the Regulation on the Designation for guidance.

The Guidelines on Payment and Receipt of Payment to Perform Duties to Maintain International Peace and Security articulate matters delegated under FETA for executing treaty obligations and widely recognised international standards.

For information regarding the Public Notice on Special Trade Measure, please refer to 3.6 Sanctions Against Countries/Regions.

South Korea has sanctions-related reporting requirements, primarily in the financial sector.

Under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, financial institutions are obligated to report any assets they have frozen in connection with sanctions designations to the Korea Financial Intelligence Unit (KoFIU). They must also file suspicious transaction reports (STRs) for activities that appear to be attempts to evade sanctions.

South Korea does not have any blocking statutes or anti-boycott regulations that prohibit adherence to other jurisdictions’ sanctions. However, the government actively advises Korean companies to be aware of and comply with third-country sanctions, particularly those of the USA.

Over the past 12 months, a notable development in Korea’s sanctions and financial compliance landscape has been the amendment to the Terrorism Financing Prohibition Act and its Enforcement Decree, scheduled to take effect on 22 January 2026. Under the revised regime, restrictions on financial transactions and disposition of assets – previously limited to individuals and entities designated as terrorism- or weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-related – will extend to corporations “owned or controlled, directly or indirectly” by such designated persons.

This expansion is expected to materially broaden the scope of entities subject to asset-freezing and transaction restriction obligations, and to increase compliance burdens for financial institutions and corporates conducting counterparty due diligence.

Regarding the amendment to the Terrorism Financing Prohibition Act and its Enforcement Decree, scheduled to take effect on 22 January 2026, please refer to 3.14 Key Developments Regarding Sanctions.

Under the Foreign Trade Act and the Public Notice on Export and Import of Strategic Items (the “Strategic Items Notice”), Korea maintains a comprehensive export control regime. Depending on the nature of the goods or technologies involved, additional statutes may apply, including the Special Act on the Fostering of National Strategic Technology, the Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology (IPTA), and the Defence Industry Development and Support Act.

Concerning the administrative authorities for export controls, see 4.1 Export Controls.

The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources (MOTIR) is the primary competent authority responsible for administering and enforcing Korea’s export control regime. In addition, the Defence Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) exercises jurisdiction over the export and brokering of defence materials and defence science and technology, and is the relevant authority for licensing and compliance matters in the defence sector.

All exporters, regardless of nationality, are subject to Korea’s export control regime. This applies not only to the direct sale or transfer of controlled goods or technologies, but also to intermediary activities – such as brokering transactions or participating in international tenders involving such items – that may independently trigger export control requirements.

Korea’s export control framework generally classifies items into strategic items and non-strategic items. Strategic items refer to goods and technologies that require an export licence for reasons of international peace, security or national security, typically due to their potential military applications or risks related to WMD proliferation. The specific items subject to control are set out in Annex 2 (Dual-Use Items) and Annex 3 (Munitions List) of the Strategic Items Notice.

Even if an item is not listed as a strategic item, it may still be designated as a catch-all item requiring “situational permission” where the destination, end-user or end use suggests a potential risk of diversion for the manufacture, development, use or storage of WMDs. In such cases, exports to certain destinations are subject to prior approval.

In addition, export controls may apply to items and technologies falling under the Special Act on the Fostering of National Strategic Technology, the IPTA, and the Defence Industry Development and Support Act, including national high-tech strategic technology (“strategic technology”), national core technologies, defence materials, and defence science and technology.

Exporters are required to obtain an export licence when engaging in transactions with a “Restricted End-User”, as designated under Korea’s export control framework. Restricted End-Users include:

• persons designated as sanctioned parties pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions;
• entities identified by multilateral export control regimes as requiring heightened vigilance; and
• any person that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources determines, for reasons of international peace, security or national security, should be subject to enhanced scrutiny in trade transactions.

The term encompasses purchasers, ultimate consignees and end-users. Exporters may verify whether a counterparty is designated as a Restricted End-User through YESTRADE by registering and using the “Restricted End-User Search” function.

Korea maintains several lists of items subject to export licensing requirements, which are set out across different statutes and administrative notices. These lists vary depending on the nature of the goods or technologies involved, as outlined in the following.

• Strategic and dual-use items: Annex 3 (Munitions List) and Annex 2 (Dual-Use Items) of the Strategic Items Notice – these lists are developed in accordance with the principles of the major multilateral export control regimes, including the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group (AG), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).
• Catch-all items requiring “situational permission”: Annex 2-2 of the Strategic Items Notice – items are designated as catch-all where the destination, end-user or end use presents an elevated risk of diversion for the manufacture, development, use or storage of WMDs.
• Exemptions from situational permission requirements for catch-all items: Annex 2-3 of the Strategic Items Notice.
• Strategic technologies: Annex to the Notification on Designation of National High-Tech Strategic Technology – these include technologies in the semiconductor (eight categories), display (four), secondary battery (three) and biotechnology (two) sectors. In designating such technologies, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources considers factors such as (i) implications for industrial supply chains and national or economic security; (ii) growth potential and technological complexity; (iii) spillover effects across industries; (iv) industrial significance; (v) economic impacts, including on exports and employment; (vi) the domestic technological level and stage of industrialisation; (vii) trade volume and global market trends; and (viii) any other matters deemed necessary for the protection and development of strategic technologies.
• National core technologies: Annex to the IPTA – these cover a broad range of sectors, including semiconductors (11 categories), displays (two), electrical and electronics (four), automotive and rail (ten), steel (nine), shipbuilding (eight), materials (four), information and communications (seven), aerospace (four), biotechnology (four), machinery (eight), robotics (three) and hydrogen technologies (two). The Minister designates such technologies based on factors such as (i) implications for national defence and security; (ii) impacts on the relevant technological field; (iii) broader industrial implications; (iv) effects on national economic infrastructure and welfare; and (v) other factors deemed significant by the relevant committees.
• Defence industry technologies: Annex to the Notification of Designation of Defence Industry Technologies – these include defence-related scientific and technological capabilities that must be protected for reasons of national security and are designated by the DAPA.

Exporters of items that are not classified as strategic items may still be required to obtain a “situational permission” if the items could be used or diverted for the manufacture, development, use or storage of WMDs and are destined for certain jurisdictions. A licence must be obtained where the exporter:

• knows that the purchaser, ultimate consignee or end-user intends to use or divert the items for such purposes; or
• has reasonable grounds for suspicion based on any of the circumstances set out in Article 19-3 of the Foreign Trade Act.

A licence is also required where an exporter transacts with a Restricted End-User, or where the exporter receives written notice from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources or another competent authority indicating that a situational permission is required due to WMD-related risks.

Violations of Korea’s export control regulations may give rise to both administrative and criminal liability. The specific penalties and consequences vary by statute, as outlined in the following.

Violations Involving Strategic Items or Catch-All Items Requiring Situational Permission

Where a person acts for the purpose of facilitating the international proliferation of controlled items and (i) exports or files an export declaration for strategic items without obtaining the required export licence, (ii) exports or files an export declaration for catch-all items without obtaining a catch-all licence, (iii) transits or transships strategic items or catch-all items without the required transit or transshipment licence, or (iv) brokers strategic items or catch-all items without the required brokering licence, such person is subject to imprisonment of up to seven years or a fine of up to five times the value of the exported goods.

Where the exporter (i) obtained a licence but violated its terms or obtained the licence by fraudulent means, or (ii) exported items without a licence but without proliferation intent, the penalty is imprisonment of up to five years or a fine of up to three times the value of the exported goods.

Violations Involving Strategic Technologies

A person who exports strategic technologies for the purpose of enabling their use abroad without obtaining approval, or who exports such technologies by fraudulent means, is subject to imprisonment of up to 20 years or a fine of up to KRW2 billion. If the export was conducted without such purpose, the penalty is imprisonment of up to 15 years or a fine of up to KRW1.5 billion.

Violations Involving National Core Technologies

Where a person knows that a national core technology will be used abroad and (i) fails to obtain the required approval or file the required notification, or (ii) obtains approval or files a notification through fraudulent means and exports the technology, the penalty is imprisonment of at least three years, together with a fine of up to KRW6.5 billion. Where the individual did not know that the technology would be used abroad, the penalty is imprisonment of up to ten years or a fine of up to KRW1 billion. If such conduct causes damage to the relevant institution, the violator is also liable for civil damages.

Violations Involving Defence Materials

Exporting defence materials without a licence, or obtaining such licence by false or fraudulent means, is punishable by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labour of up to ten years, or a fine of up to KRW100 million. Operating a defence material export business without the required notification, or filing such notification by false or fraudulent means, is subject to a fine of up to KRW5 million.

Export activities are permitted where the exporter obtains the licences required under the relevant statutes for the specific item or type of transaction.

Exporters of strategic items must obtain a licence from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources or the head of another competent administrative agency. Licences are generally granted only where the items will be used for peaceful purposes, and certain categories of technology are excluded from the licensing requirement, including:

• publicly available technology;
• technology relating to basic scientific research;
• technology limited to what is necessary for filing a patent application, and
• minimum technology necessary for the installation, operation, inspection, maintenance or repair of items that are not subject to licence requirements or that have already been licensed.

Available licence types include:

• individual export licences;
• bulk export licences;
• warship design technology export licences; and
• item-specific bulk export licences.

Even where an item is not classified as a strategic item, a situational permission may still be required, in which case the exporter must apply for a licence from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources or another competent authority. The circumstances in which a catch-all licence is required are described in 4.4 Persons Subject to Export Controls and 4.7 Other Export Controls.

Exporters of strategic items or catch-all items must also obtain a transit or transshipment licence if the items will transit through or be transshipped in a Korean port or airport. Further, brokering transactions involving the export of such items from one third country to another requires a brokering licence.

A holder of a strategic technology who intends to export such technology – whether through a transfer, sale or other disposition to a foreign entity – must obtain prior approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources.

Exports of national core technology also require prior approval or notification. Specifically, (i) where the technology was developed with government R&D funding, prior approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources is required, while (ii) where the technology was developed without government funding, the exporter must file a prior export notification.

Exports or brokering of defence materials or defence science and technology require a licence from the DAPA. Additionally, parties seeking to engage in export consultations prior to applying for a licence must obtain a preliminary export approval, and those intending to participate in international tenders must obtain approval for participation in such tenders. Any person who intends to engage in the business of exporting or brokering defence materials or defence science and technology must file a notification with the DAPA.

Exporters are required to maintain robust internal compliance systems under the Foreign Trade Act and its subordinate regulations. While exporters of military items must, by definition, comply with Korea’s export control regime, the same level of diligence is required for dual-use items, which – although not military goods themselves – may be susceptible to diversion for military use.

Under the Strategic Items Notice, Korea classifies export destinations into three categories: “Category A”, “Category B-1” and “Category B-2”. Exports of dual-use items to Category B-1 or Category B-2 destinations may require prior licensing by the relevant authority. Category A includes 29 jurisdictions such as the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom, while all other jurisdictions fall within Categories B-1 and B-2. Exporters shipping items to destinations outside Category A must therefore conduct enhanced due diligence – taking into account the characteristics of the item, counterparties and transaction background – to determine whether the export is subject to Korean export controls.

Violations of domestic export control laws may lead to both criminal and administrative liability. Korea imposes significantly higher penalties for “purpose-based offences”, such as where the exporter acted with the intent to facilitate the international proliferation of controlled items. Exporters should therefore maintain sufficient documentation to demonstrate the absence of such intent.

Exporters may also request an official classification ruling (“Technical Classification”) from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources or another competent agency to confirm whether an item is subject to strategic item controls. This procedure is available through YESTRADE. The reviewing authority must issue a determination within 15 days of receiving the application, although the review period may be extended where consultation with external experts is required.

Concerning export reporting requirements, see 4.9 Export Licences.

Effective 28 February 2025, the 36th Amendment to the Strategic Items Notice introduced 21 additional items into Korea’s strategic item control list, aligning the domestic regime with updates made under the multilateral export control regimes. Newly designated items include goods and technologies in advanced industrial sectors – such as quantum computers and 3D printing equipment – that are already subject to similar controls in many jurisdictions for reasons of international peace and national security.

The amendment also introduces an exemption for exports of humanitarian medical devices to Russia, reflecting approaches adopted by the United States and other major jurisdictions. Exporters may utilise this exemption only where they submit a prior notification demonstrating that the items fall within the category of humanitarian-use medical devices.

There are currently no formally announced significant pending amendments to Korea’s export control laws. However, the Korean government has consistently updated the lists of strategic items and catch-all items requiring situational permission, and further refinements are anticipated over the next 12 months, particularly with respect to advanced technologies, critical minerals and dual-use software and technology. Companies operating in these sectors should closely monitor future amendments to the Strategic Items Notice and any resulting changes to item classifications.

In addition, as attempts to circumvent sanctions against Russia through rerouting, transshipment and brokering continue to increase, the Korean government has placed greater emphasis on enhanced monitoring of third-country transactions and strengthened due-diligence obligations for exporters. Notably, the Foreign Trade Act was amended in 2024 to tighten controls on transit, transshipment and brokering activities, reflecting heightened enforcement priorities in this area.

The principal laws governing AD duties, countervailing duties (CVD) and safeguards (SG) (collectively, “trade remedies”) are the following.

• The investigation and imposition of AD are provided for in Articles 51–56 of the Customs Act and the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act.
• The investigation and imposition of CVD are provided for in Articles 57–62 of the Customs Act and the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act.
• The investigation and imposition of SG are provided for in Articles 15–22-6 of the Act on the Investigation of Unfair International Trade Practices and Remedy against Injury to Industry. These provisions implement multilateral SG disciplines under the WTO agreements, and Korea may also impose bilateral SG pursuant to its FTAs.

Various government agencies are involved in the decision-making process for trade remedies. The key agencies are as follows.

• Investigating Authority: The KTC, an agency within MOTIR, is responsible for investigating the existence of dumping or subsidies and the resulting material injury to the domestic industry. The KTC recommends whether to impose duties, and at what level, to the Minister of Economy and Finance.
• Imposing Authority: The Minister of Economy and Finance makes the final decision on whether to impose duties and determines the applicable duty rate based on the KTC’s recommendation.

In Korea, investigations of trade remedies are initiated only upon an application filed either by domestic producers of the like product (or an association representing them) or by the competent minister responsible for the relevant industry. The governing laws do not authorise the KTC to self-initiate investigations ex officio.

Accordingly, cases commence based on a petition from the domestic industry or a request from the relevant ministry. For review proceedings that occur after measures are imposed, please see 5.9 Frequency of Reviews.

AD/CVD – Original Investigations

Petitions to initiate original AD and CVD investigations may be filed at any time. There is no prescribed filing window, so domestic industries can petition on an ad hoc basis.

AD/CVD – Reviews of Existing Measures

For reviews seeking the continuation of an existing AD/CVD measure (ie, sunset reviews), a petition must be filed no later than six months before the scheduled expiry of the measure. Petitions submitted after this deadline are not accepted.

Other review types (such as interim reviews and new-shipper or non-investigated exporter reviews) have distinct timing rules; see 5.9 Frequency of Reviews.

Safeguards

While SG investigations can also be requested on an ad hoc basis, the re-imposition of an SG on products previously subject to an SG is permitted only after a standstill equal to the prior measure’s duration or two years, whichever is longer.

Non-domestic companies, such as foreign producers/exporters, importers, consumers and the government of the exporting country, are allowed to participate in the investigation as interested parties.

Process for Imposing AD

The typical steps and indicative timelines for imposing AD are as follows.

• Pre-initiation screening: The KTC reviews the petition for sufficiency (standing, evidence of dumping, injury and causation). This generally takes about one to two months.
• Initiation and questionnaires: Upon initiation, the KTC issues questionnaires to interested parties (domestic producers, foreign producers/exporters, importers and relevant governments, as appropriate). Responses are typically due within about 30–40 days; supplemental questionnaires may follow.
• Hearing and party interaction: On request, the KTC holds a public hearing where interested parties may present arguments and question each other under the KTC’s procedures.
• On-site verification: The KTC may conduct verifications at company premises to confirm submitted information.
• Preliminary determination: A preliminary decision may be issued within approximately 3–6 months of initiation. Where affirmative, provisional measures (eg, provisional AD duties or cash deposits) may be applied in accordance with statutory limits.
• Disclosure: Prior to the final determination, the KTC provides a disclosure of essential facts that will form the basis of the final decision, and invites comments.
• Final determination and imposition: A final determination is typically issued within 12 months of initiation, extendable by up to six months in complex cases. Following an affirmative final determination and recommendation, MOEF imposes duties by public notice.

Process for Imposing CVD

The typical steps and timelines for imposing CVD are similar to those of AD as explained in the foregoing.

Process for Imposing SG

The typical steps and timeline for imposing SG are:

• initiation, questionnaires and public hearing – upon initiation, the KTC circulates questionnaires and, after receiving responses, holds a public hearing;
• preliminary determination and provisional measures – where warranted, a preliminary affirmative finding may support provisional measures; and
• final determination and imposition – a final determination is generally issued within 12 months of initiation (extendable), followed by implementation of tariff or quantitative measures by the competent authorities.

The investigating authority publishes the following reports during the investigation of trade remedies.

• Preliminary findings: A finding explaining a preliminary determination and the facts that form the basis for provisional measures. This finding is published as a notice in the Official Gazette.
• Final findings: A finding explaining a final determination and the facts that form the basis for definitive measures. This finding is also published as a notice in the Official Gazette.

In addition, when conducting an AD/CVD investigation, the KTC provides the disclosure of essential facts to the interested parties in writing before the final determination (see 5.6 Investigation and Imposition of Duties and Safeguards).

The matter of jurisdictions with no imposition of duties and safeguards is not relevant in South Korea.       

Review of AD

There are several review processes for AD measures, as detailed in the following.

• New shipper review: A new exporter or producer not examined in the original investigation may request an individual dumping margin. The investigation should be completed expeditiously, generally within about one year (with limited extensions).
• Interim (changed circumstances) review: After a measure has been in force for at least one year, interested parties may request a review if there are material changes in circumstances affecting dumping, injury or causation. The review is generally completed within one year, subject to extension.
• Sunset (expiry) review: The domestic industry may request a sunset review to determine whether extending the measure is necessary. Such a request can be made at any time after one year from the effective date of the measure, but no later than six months prior to its expiry date. The investigation should be completed within one year, but can be extended.

Review of CVD

The types and procedures of CVD reviews are largely identical to those for AD, with similar initiation standards, timelines, questionnaires, on-site verifications, disclosure of essential facts and final determination steps.

Review of SG

The review processes for SG measures differ from those for AD and CVD. They are governed by specific timelines and conditions related to the domestic industry’s adjustment.

• Mid-term review: If an SG measure is imposed for a period exceeding three years, the KTC is required to conduct a mid-term review. This review must take place before the halfway point of the measure’s total duration. The purpose is to re-examine the measure and determine whether it should be liberalised (ie, made less restrictive) or terminated ahead of schedule. Based on this review, which assesses the domestic industry’s adjustment progress, the KTC may recommend to the relevant minister that the measure be relaxed or lifted.
• Extension review: Upon request from the domestic industry that originally petitioned for the measure, the KTC can conduct a review to determine whether to extend the SG measure. An extension may be recommended only if there is evidence that the domestic industry is actively undergoing structural adjustment and the measure remains necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury. Importantly, any extended measure must be more liberal than the initial measure in effect. The total period of application, including the initial period and all extensions, cannot exceed eight years.

Concerning the review process, see 5.9 Frequency of Reviews.

Importers of products subject to AD/CVD measures may challenge final determinations and imposition decisions through administrative litigation before the Korean courts. In practice, there is an established body of precedent concerning AD/CVD and SG measures. Judicial review typically commences in the Seoul Administrative Court, with appeals to the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court.

The matter of developments regarding AD/CVD measures is not relevant in this jurisdiction.

A significant pending change to Korea’s trade remedy framework is the planned amendment to the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act, which aims to strengthen the anti-circumvention system. The amendment will expand the scope of circumvention to explicitly include “third-country circumvention”.

This will cover cases where:

• minor modifications are made to the subject goods in a third country before they are exported to Korea; or
• parts and raw materials of the subject goods are exported to a third country for assembly into the final product, which is then exported to Korea.

This amendment is scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2026.

A range of Korean statutes impose restrictions on foreign investment. The primary legislation governing foreign investment is the Foreign Investment Promotion Act (FIPA), while other laws – such as the IPTA, the Defence Industry Development and Support Act, and the Telecommunications Business Act – may apply depending on the nature of the transaction.

Under the FIPA, foreign investors must file a prior notification with, or obtain prior approval from, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources before making a foreign investment in Korea.

Under the IPTA, where an institution holding national core technology intends to engage in foreign investment – including cross-border mergers and acquisitions or joint ventures – the institution must:

• submit a prior notification to the Minister if the technology was developed without government R&D funding; or
• obtain prior approval from the Minister if the technology was developed with government R&D funding.

For notifications, approvals and permits under both the FIPA and the IPTA, the applicant must submit the prescribed application to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources. The Minister reviews the application and notifies the applicant of the decision. In the case of IPTA reviews relating to national core technology, the Minister’s determination must be based on deliberation by the Industrial Technology Protection Committee, which evaluates national security considerations and the potential economic impact arising from the foreign M&A transaction.

For foreign investment notifications filed under the FIPA, the Minister must issue a certificate of receipt at the earliest practicable time upon accepting the filing. Applications for foreign investment approval must be processed within 15 days, subject to a single extension of up to 15 additional days where unavoidable. Any subsequent change to the approved investment – such as changes in the foreign ownership ratio – requires a separate amendment approval.

For notifications submitted under the IPTA, the Minister must notify the applicant of the result within 15 days of receipt. If the Minister determines that the transaction may pose serious national security risks, the Minister may, within 30 days of issuing the notification result, consult with the heads of relevant central administrative agencies and, following deliberation by the Committee, order suspension, prohibition or restoration measures. For IPTA approval applications, the Minister must issue a decision within 45 days of receipt; however, any additional time required for technical examinations of the national core technology is excluded from the statutory review period.

Although the relevant government agency differs across statutes, MOTIR is the primary authority administering and enforcing the main investment security regulations, including the FIPA, with the Korea Trade Promotion Corporation (KOTRA) providing supplementary support in certain procedures.

Foreign investors seeking to make an investment in Korea are required to file a prior notification with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources pursuant to the FIPA. In addition, if the investment involves acquiring shares or equity interests issued by a Korean enterprise engaged in defence industry activities that is operated by a Korean national or a Korean corporation, the investor must obtain prior approval from the Minister.

As a general principle, foreign investors may conduct investment activities in Korea without restriction, unless otherwise provided under law. However, an investment may be restricted where it is deemed to:

• undermine national security or public order;
• adversely affect public health, sanitation or environmental protection;
• significantly offend public morals; or
• violate Korean laws.

“Cases that are deemed to undermine national security” refers to situations determined by MOTIR – following deliberation by the Foreign Investment Committee – to fall within any of the following categories:

• where the foreign investor seeks to acquire effective control over the management of an existing Korean company through the acquisition of shares; or
• where the investment is likely to (i) impede the production of defence materials; (ii) involve items or technologies subject to export approval that may be diverted for military purposes; (iii) risk the disclosure of information treated as state secrets under relevant contracts; (iv) critically impede international peace and security efforts undertaken by the United Nations; (v) involve a high risk of leakage of national core technology; or (vi) involve a high risk of leakage of national strategic technology.

Separately, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources designates “restricted business sectors” through Annex 2 of the Regulations on Foreign Investment. Where an investment concerns a business sector subject to foreign ownership caps, a foreign investor may invest only within the prescribed threshold (for example, less than 50% foreign ownership for beef cattle farming, or for magazine and periodical publishing).

Certain sectors are entirely excluded from foreign investment due to their public interest nature, as listed in Annex 1 of the Regulations on Foreign Investment, such as pension services and national postal services. Additionally, where an entity holding national core technology seeks to pursue foreign M&A, joint ventures or similar forms of foreign investment, such transactions may be subject to investment review under the IPTA.

See 6.1 Investment Security Mechanisms and 6.3 Transactions Subject to Investment Security Measures.

Even where a Korean company operates in a business sector designated as restricted, a foreign investor may still invest without limitation under the FIPA if the revenue derived from the restricted business accounts for 1% or less of the company’s total annual revenue.

However, if a foreign investor acquires shares or equity interests in such a company and, thereafter, the proportion of revenue derived from the restricted business exceeds the 1% threshold, the investor is required to divest the portion of its shareholding that exceeds the permitted foreign ownership cap. Such divestment must be made to a Korean national or a Korean corporation within six months from the date on which the relevant fiscal year’s financial statements are finalised. Where unavoidable circumstances exist, this divestment period may be extended once, for up to an additional six months.

Under the FIPA, an investor who acquires shares following the filing of a foreign investment report may be subject to an administrative fine of up to KRW10 million for violations. Further, a foreign investor who acquires shares in a defence industry company without obtaining the required prior approval from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources may face imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to KRW10 million.

Under the IPTA, where an institution holding a national core technology receives an order – such as suspension, prohibition or restoration – during the government’s review of an overseas M&A or joint venture transaction and fails to comply within the prescribed deadline, an administrative coercive fine of up to KRW10 million per day may be imposed from the day following the deadline.

More severely, if a person transfers or allows the transfer of a national core technology for use abroad with knowledge that it will be used overseas, without obtaining the required approval or submitting the required notification, that person is subject to a minimum of three years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to KRW6.5 billion, both of which may be imposed concurrently. If the person did not know the technology would be used abroad, the penalty is reduced to up to ten years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW1 billion. In addition, any damages caused to the relevant institution must be compensated. The same penalties apply to those who obtain approval or file notifications through false or fraudulent means.

There are no fees associated with investment security reviews or filings.

On 31 March 2025, MOTIR amended the IPTA to introduce a new enforcement mechanism. Under the amendment, where a party subject to an order – such as suspension, prohibition or restoration – issued in connection with an overseas merger, acquisition or joint venture fails to comply within the prescribed period, MOTIR may impose an administrative coercive fine for non-compliance.

In May 2025, a bill to amend the FIPA was submitted to the National Assembly. If enacted, the amendment is expected to significantly tighten Korea’s foreign investment regulatory framework.

First, the amendment would newly introduce Article 4(6), expanding the scope of national security review to cover not only cases where a foreign investor directly acquires de facto control over a Korean company, but also indirect acquisitions whereby a foreign investor exercises substantial control over another Korean entity through a foreign-invested enterprise. The amendment would also strengthen the criminal penalties for evading or bypassing the security review process.

In addition, the amendment would authorise the Minister of Trade, Industry and Resources to request relevant ministries and agencies to submit materials or opinions necessary for reviewing a foreign investment, and such agencies would be required to comply absent special circumstances. Notably, the grounds on which MOTIR may issue corrective orders would be expanded from instances where a restriction ground is “identified” to instances where it “exists or is likely to exist”. This would allow MOTIR to intervene earlier where a foreign investment may potentially pose a national security risk.

Separately, as Korea recorded 23 confirmed cases of overseas leakage of industrial technologies in the past year – including in strategically critical sectors such as semiconductors and displays – the government is widely expected to consider further enhancements to enforcement and penalties under the IPTA and related legislation.

The South Korean government utilises a system of tax incentives as a primary tool to encourage domestic investment and production, particularly in high-tech and strategic industries. These measures are designed to reduce the corporate tax burden for companies investing in key sectors within the country.

The main legal framework for these national-level tax benefits is the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. This Act provides tax credits for companies investing in facilities and R&D related to designated “National Strategic Technologies”, such as semiconductors, secondary batteries and biotechnology. These investment tax credits can substantially reduce the corporate tax burden for companies establishing or expanding their production base within South Korea.

At the local level, the Restriction of Special Local Tax Act complements these national incentives. It empowers local governments to grant exemptions or reductions on local taxes, primarily acquisition tax and property tax, for companies making new or expanded facility investments within their jurisdictions. These local tax benefits are often aimed at promoting investment in non-metropolitan areas to foster balanced regional development.

There are no standards or other technical requirements in South Korea explicitly aimed at reducing imports and/or encouraging domestic production. The government has adopted various technical regulations and standards to ensure the safety, quality and environmental protection of products. A key certification is the KC Mark (Korea Certification), which signifies compliance with Korean safety standards. Relevant laws include:

• the Industrial Standardization Act – establishes and manages the Korean Industrial Standards (KS) to improve the quality of industrial products and ensure interoperability;
• the Electrical Appliances and Consumer Products Safety Control Act – mandates safety certification (KC Mark) for electrical appliances and various consumer products to prevent hazards to consumers;
• the Radio Waves Act – establishes technical regulations for broadcasting and communications equipment to ensure efficient spectrum use and to prevent interference;
• the Food Sanitation Act – sets standards and specifications for foods, food additives and food contact materials to ensure food safety;
• the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act – establishes technical regulations to secure the quality, efficacy and safety of pharmaceuticals and medical devices; and
• the Motor Vehicle Management Act – establishes technical standards for motor vehicles and parts to ensure safety and prevent pollution.

There are no sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) requirements in South Korea aimed at reducing imports and/or encouraging domestic production. The government has adopted various SPS measures to ensure food safety and prevent the incursion of animal and plant pests and diseases from imported products. Key regulations include:

• the Act on the Prevention of Contagious Animal Diseases – stipulates products that are prohibited from importation and those that require quarantine inspection to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious livestock diseases;
• the Plant Protection Act – stipulates plants that are prohibited from importation and those that require quarantine inspection to prevent the entry of foreign pests that could harm domestic flora; and
• the Special Act on Imported Food Safety Management – a comprehensive law dedicated to imported foods, which establishes procedures for prior registration of foreign food facilities, import notification and inspection to ensure the safety of such products.

There are no competition policies and price controls in South Korea aimed at reducing imports and/or encouraging domestic production.

There are no state trading, state-owned enterprises and privatisation measures in South Korea aimed at reducing imports and/or encouraging domestic production.

South Korea has been a member of the WTO GPA since January 1997. The GPA prohibits discrimination between domestic products and those from other GPA member countries in government procurement. South Korea’s domestic law, the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party, reflects this principle. As such, in procurements covered by the GPA, no “buy national/local” requirements are applied. The government’s policy is generally to provide equal treatment to suppliers from both GPA and non-GPA member countries.

Foreign and Korean geographical indications are protected in South Korea in accordance with Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act. However, there are no geographical indication protection measures in South Korea aimed at reducing imports and/or encouraging domestic production.

There are no other significant issues or developments in South Korea trade law.