Framework Act on Consumers (FAC)

The FAC governs issues concerning product safety. The FAC contains provisions regarding business owners’ (manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers) duties, consumers’ rights and duties, local governments’ duties, and the role of consumer organisations. The FAC applies in the absence of any safety regulations that apply specifically to the product at issue. The FAC is enforced by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) and its affiliate, the Korea Consumer Agency (KCA).

Framework Act on Product Safety (FAPS)

The FAPS provides additional requirements regarding safety investigations and recalls. Both the FAPS and the FAC serve as basic laws on product safety. The FAPS is enforced by the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS) and its affiliate, the Korean Institute of Product Safety (KIPS), under the auspices of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE). Either the FAC or FAPS may apply, depending on which government agency is responsible for investigating the product at issue. However, in practice, duplicative measures or sanctions do not occur.

The Product Liability Act (PLA)

See 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law.

Other laws that provide safety standards for specific product types:

• vehicle recalls are governed by the Motor Vehicle Management Act (MVMA) and the Clean Air Conservation Act (CACA);
• electrical products are regulated under the Electrical Appliances and Consumer Products Safety Control Act (EASCA);
• food products are covered by the Food Sanitation Act and the Health Functional Food Act;
• pharmaceutical products are governed by the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act; and
• medical devices are regulated under the Medical Devices Act.

Other product safety statutes are the Special Act on Safety of Products for Children (SASPC) and the Radio Waves Act (RWA).

FAC

To address product safety risks, the KFTC may direct the heads of the relevant central administrative agencies to issue remedial orders. For reference, the KCA handles most of the tasks, under the KFTC’s supervision. Under the FAC, the central administrative agencies delegate recall-related authorities to the mayor or governor of the relevant jurisdiction. They may impose an administrative fine or issue a recall order, or both, if a product defect is likely to place consumers at risk.

FAPS

KATS may conduct safety investigations and issue recall recommendations or orders and impose sanctions for non-compliance. KATS also establishes national safety standards, issues safety certifications, and regulates safety issues for consumer products. The main tasks are handled by the KIPS under KATS.

Other Authorities

There are several other statutes that apply to specific products, for example, automobiles and food. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) enforces statutes concerning automobiles, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) enforces food-related laws and regulations.

Under both the FAPS and FAC, if a product is found to be defective, the business entity is required to implement a voluntary recall, or in certain cases, a mandatory recall.

Voluntary Recall

When a business entity discovers a significant defect in its product that may cause harm to the consumer’s life, body or property, the business owner is obligated to conduct a voluntary recall (which may include corrective actions such as removal, destruction, repair, exchange, refund, improvement or prohibition of manufacture or distribution of products) under the FAPS.

Involuntary (Mandatory) Recall

Similar to a voluntary recall, if the product defect poses a significant risk to the life, health or property of the consumers, KATS or the competent agency may issue a recommendation or an order to the business entity to implement a recall. While the standard for triggering a voluntary versus mandatory recall is similar, mandatory recall often occurs if the regulator finds out about the product defect before the manufacturer, for instance, through market monitoring or a consumer report.

In addition, under the FAPS, KATS may issue a mandatory recall order if a safety inspection conducted by a government agency identifies a safety risk or a manufacturer fails to comply with a recall recommendation issued by a competent agency without justifiable grounds.

The obligation to implement a voluntary or mandatory recall also arises under the FAC, and the relevant criteria and requirements are very similar to those under the FAPS. If the recall obligation is triggered under both the FAPS and FAC, a manufacturer may fulfil its obligation under either the FAC or the FAPS.

FAPS

Under the FAPS, if a company learns of any serious defect in the manufacture, design, labelling or other indication of a product manufactured, imported or supplied by it to consumers, it must file a report immediately to the head of the competent central administration agency, such as KATS, and commence a voluntary recall. The obligation to report a defect is triggered if the defect is “serious”, which refers to any product defect that causes or is likely to cause (i) death or physical injury/disease that will require medical treatment of four weeks or longer, or (ii) a fire or an explosion.

In addition, the reporting requirement is triggered if the same product is the subject of a voluntary or a mandatory recall in an overseas market.

The FAPS does not specify a timeline for the reporting requirement, but in practice, companies are advised to file the report within ten days of becoming aware of the defect, in accordance with the subordinate regulations issued by the enforcement agencies.

In general, if the company decides to conduct a voluntary recall, it must report the recall to KATS and submit a recall plan using the “Form 7-2”, as specified in the Enforcement Decrees to the FAPS along with a power of attorney (if the company is reporting through local counsel). If the reporting entity is a foreign company, it must designate a local representative who is capable of communicating with KATS to report the recall and conduct a recall inspection.

Further, regardless of whether the product defect is “serious”, a business entity must report the defect to KATS within 48 hours if the product causes an accident involving death, injury/disease requiring four weeks or longer of medical treatment, or a fire or an explosion, or if the product causes repeated accidents.

FAC

Under the FAC, if a business entity becomes aware of a serious defect in the product it manufactured, imported, sold or provided that poses a risk to the life, safety or property of consumers, it must file a report within five days to the competent central administrative agency. Here, a product is deemed to have a serious defect if it causes accidents resulting in death, injury/disease requiring three weeks or longer of medical care, or food poisoning of two or more individuals, or if it fails to comply with the safety requirements under relevant laws or regulations.

FAPS

Under the FAPS, a company may be punished by imprisonment of up to three years or a criminal fine of up to KRW30 million if the company fails to (i) comply with a recall order; or (ii) take corrective action even if it has discovered a material defect in the company’s product that may cause harm to the consumer’s life, body or property.

If a company fails to comply with the reporting obligation for a serious defect, it is subject to an administrative fine of up to KRW5 million. If a company fails to report any incidents of actual injury or damage, it is subject to an administrative fine of up to KRW30 million.

FAC

Under the FAC, a business entity that fails to comply with a recall order issued by a competent agency may be punished by imprisonment of up to three years or a criminal fine of up to KRW50 million.

A company that fails to comply with the notification obligation for a material defect is subject to an administrative fine of up to KRW30 million.

Product Liability Act (PLA)

The PLA imposes strict liability for defective products causing injury and damage beyond the product itself. The term “product” is defined as any movable object that is industrially manufactured or processed, including those incorporated into other movable or immovable objects. There are no products or classes of products that are excluded from the scope of the PLA.

The “manufacturer” is the primary party that may be found liable under the PLA. According to the PLA, the manufacturer is defined to include: (i) any person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing, processing, or importing products, and (ii) any person who has indicated (or misrepresented) on the product (by incorporating their name, trade name, trademark, or any discernible sign) that such person engages in the business of manufacturing, processing or importing the product (eg, a purchaser in an OEM transaction). Further, where an importer or indicated manufacturer has compensated an injured party for damages arising from product liability, they may seek to recover losses from the original manufacturer. If two or more persons are liable for the same damages, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable.

Under the PLA, the claimant must prove:

• a defect in the product (manufacturing defect, design defect, or labelling defect);
• death, bodily injury or property damage; and
• a causal relationship between the defect and the damage.

However, it is legally presumed under the PLA that a product was defective at the time it was supplied and that the defect caused the damage, if a claimant can prove that:

• the damage was sustained while the product was used normally as intended;
• the cause of the damage was within the practical control of the manufacturer; and
• the damage would not normally occur without a defect in the product.

Civil Code

Product liability claims may also be brought by causes of action arising under the Civil Code, such as breach of contract or tort. Unlike the PLA, under the Civil Code, the plaintiffs may seek compensation for the losses incurred from damage to the product itself. The PLA is a “special law” addressing collateral damages arising from a product defect, and it takes precedence over the Civil Code on such matters. However, for any issue not covered within the scope of the PLA, the Civil Code applies.

An injured party is not restrictively defined in the PLA. In addition to consumers, any person or company that purchased a product for business purposes (including resale or use as a business equipment) can bring a product liability claim as an injured party. Even persons or companies that did not use the defective product can bring a claim for product liability if they sustained damages.

Under the PLA, the period during which a claim for damages can be brought is three years from the date the claimant becomes aware of the damage. This is the same as the Civil Code, which provides that the statute of limitations for tort-based damage claims is three years.

The right to claim damages under the PLA must be exercised within ten years from the date on which the manufacturer supplied the product that caused the damage. However, if the damage is caused by substances accumulated in the body or by symptoms that appear after a certain latent period, the limitation period starts running when the injury occurs. Aside from this exception, the widely accepted view is that the statute of limitations for product liability claims is ten years from the date the product was supplied.

Product liability cases are brought before the District Courts with competent jurisdiction, which is generally based on the defendant’s location or the location where the alleged tortious act occurred.

There are no pre-action procedures required before filing a product liability claim. Claimants may file a product liability claim directly to the civil court.

There are no evidence preservation rules specific to product liability cases in Korea.

Any party to a civil litigation can use evidence preservation procedures as a pre-litigation discovery strategy under the Civil Procedure Act. The purpose of these procedures is to examine and preserve the relevant evidence in advance, when it is apparent that accessing or obtaining it will be difficult if the party waits for the formal litigation proceedings to start. The court has discretion to grant a request for evidence preservation. While there is explicit penalty provision (eg, adverse inference) for breaching the evidence preservation order, the court may consider non-compliance as a factor in issuing its judgment.

There is no common law rule of discovery (ie, a US-style discovery system) in South Korea. Parties to an action are only required to submit the documents that are necessary to substantiate the relevant claim or defence.

However, a party can request the court to order the opposing party or a third party to produce specific documents in their possession. More specifically, under Article 344 of the Civil Procedure Act, a party can request a document production order in any of the following circumstances:

• the other party possesses a document that has been cited in the same proceeding;
• the requesting party is legally entitled to request the holder of the document to deliver or make the document available for inspection; or
• the document was prepared for the requesting party’s benefit, or pertains to a legal relationship between the requesting and the requested party.

A request for a document production order must clearly indicate:

• the document requested;
• the contents of the document;
• the holder of the document;
• the facts to be proved by the document; and
• the grounds on which the document should be produced.

There are no explicit rules relating to expert evidence in product liability cases. In general, the civil court can, on its own initiative or on a party’s request, appoint an expert to provide assistance on any technical issues. After an expert report or statement has been submitted, the court can require the expert to testify in court to clarify or supplement their written submission. There are no specific rules on the nature or extent of expert evidence and the court decides on its admissibility at its discretion. A party can also submit evidence from its own expert in the form of an expert report or testimony. A party-appointed expert can be cross-examined by the opposing party.       

In principle, the party filing the complaint bears the burden of proving the existence of a fault/defect and the damages. In practice, however, the courts adjudicating product liability cases often mitigate the plaintiff’s burden of proof regarding the defect, considering that the technical and complex nature of a defect makes it inherently difficult to prove by ordinary plaintiffs. Although the requisite standard of proof for a defect is not explicitly codified in the law, the general principle has been that the existence of a defect should be proven by a preponderance of the evidence by the plaintiff.

The standard of proof for causation is not defined in the PLA. While, in principle, plaintiffs should prove individual causation in tort cases (including product liability claims) by a preponderance of evidence, this standard has been relaxed following a leading Supreme Court case (Supreme Court Case No 98 Da 15934, issued on 25 February 2000) which adopted the same standard codified in the PLA for establishing the existence of a defect for tort cases (that is, the damage (i) was sustained while the product was used normally as intended, (ii) occurred from a cause that is within the practical control of the manufacturer, and (iii) would not normally occur without a defect in the product).

Product liability cases, similar to other tort claims arising under the Civil Code, may be initiated in the civil court (ie, a District Court). Jury trials are not available in Korea for tort or product liability cases. A product liability claim is reviewed by a judge (or a panel of three judges if the amount of controversy exceeds a certain threshold). There is no upper threshold award of damages in a civil litigation and there are no specific procedural requirements for product liability cases.

As in any other civil cases, product liability cases may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the District Court or the High Court, which reviews the case de novo. The petition for appeal must be submitted within 14 days of receiving the first instance court decision.

A decision of by the Appellate Division of the District Court or the High Court may be appealed to the Supreme Court (the appeal petition must be submitted within 14 days of receiving the decision). The Supreme Court’s review is limited to the question of law and its decision is the final and conclusive.

The PLA provides the following statutory exemptions from liability (or affirmative defences) for the manufacturer:

• the manufacturer did not supply the product;
• the defect could not have been discovered by the available scientific or technological standards at the time of supply (state of the art defence);
• the defect occurred as a result of complying with the legal requirements at the time of supply; or
• for suppliers of raw materials, parts, or components, the defect occurred as a result of following the manufacturer’s specifications/instructions.

The second, third, and fourth exemptions above do not apply if the manufacturer knew or should have known of the defect after supplying the product but failed to take appropriate measures to prevent the damage caused by the defect.

As discussed inn 2.1 Product Liability Causes of Action and Sources of Law, the existence of a defect may be presumed if the plaintiff can prove that the damage:

• was sustained while the product was used normally as intended;
• occurred from a cause that was within the practical control of the manufacturer; and
• would not normally occur without a defect in the product.

In practice, courts have frequently accepted the defendant’s defence relating the normal use of the product (ie, the first element), but rarely uphold the defence based on the second and third elements.

As noted in 2.12 Defences to Product Liability Claims, the PLA provides certain statutory exemptions to liability, including “the defect occurred as a result of complying with the legal requirements at the time of supply”. However, this defence does not apply if the manufacturer knowingly (including constructive knowledge) supplied a defective product.

In principle, the losing party is responsible for paying the litigation costs, including court fees and attorneys’ fees. In the case of a partial judgment, the losing party may be asked to bear a portion of such costs and fees. Attorneys’ fees are calculated based on a court formula that takes into consideration the claim amount (ie, not the actual attorneys’ fees incurred by the opposing party).

Litigation funding is almost non-existent in Korea and has only very recently been introduced; however, it is not widely utilised. That said, plaintiffs who are unable to fund the full cost of litigation retain counsel through, for instance, contingency fee arrangements. 

There is no US-style class action system in Korea for product liability or tort cases.

Qualified consumer civic groups may bring representative actions against product manufacturers, but such proceedings are limited to seeking injunctive relief, such as an order to discontinue conduct that infringes on consumers’ rights. Claims for compensation for damages are not permitted.

Where a defective product has affected a large group of individuals, the most common approach is for the consumers to file a group action where a single lawsuit is filed in court naming multiple plaintiffs. It is possible to appoint a representative plaintiff to litigate on behalf of other plaintiffs, in which case the judgment issued on the representative plaintiff would apply to all other plaintiffs. If a representative plaintiff is not appointed, the court will issue a judgment for each of the plaintiffs. 

Below are two notable court cases that have had an impact on product liability litigation.

PLA Precedence Over the Commercial Code

A 2023 Supreme Court decision (Case No 2022 Da 230677, issued on 18 May 2023) clarified the relationship between the Korean Civil Code and the PLA.

In this case, an apple producer purchased a plasma equipment that controls the ripeness of fruit, which emitted ozone when used in a refrigerated storage unit. The apple producer sued the plasma equipment manufacturer, alleging that no proper warning was provided regarding the use of the equipment in refrigerated storage units. The plaintiff filed the claim citing tort under the Civil Code and the trial court and appellate court issued decisions by reviewing the tort claim only. However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and ordered the lower court to review the case under the PLA even though the plaintiff had not raised a claim under the PLA.

This case clarified that the PLA takes precedence in product liability cases where the issue at dispute falls under the scope of both the PLA and the Civil Code. This means that defence counsels must review the applicability of the PLA in tort claims even if the plaintiff has not cited the PLA as a cause of action in the complaint.

PLA Applicability to Non-End User Consumers

A 2022 Supreme Court judgment (Supreme Court Decision No 2017 Da 213289, issued on 14 July 2022) expanded the applicability of the PLA to business entities as claimants, even if they are not end-user consumers.

A poultry farm business used a veterinarian medicine for the chickens raised on the farm. The medicine included an ingredient that was traceable in the eggs intended for sale to consumers and the poultry farm suffered damages as it could not sell those eggs. The farm sued the drug company for damages, claiming a labelling defect in the medicine under the PLA.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, stating that the drug manufacturer could have foreseen that the drug would be used on chickens whose eggs would be sold to consumers. Accordingly, the manufacturer should have provided proper warning to the farm and the failure to do so constituted a labelling defect under the PLA.

The PLA is typically invoked by consumers who are end users of the manufactured product. This case illustrated that the PLA can apply even if the claim is brought by a business entity that is supplied with a product by another supplier. Thus, defence counsels must consider the possibility of claims arising under the PLA when reviewing supply-related disputes among business entities.

KATS Announces 2025 Product Safety Investigation Roadmap

On 15 January 2025, KATS released its 2025 Product Safety Investigation Roadmap (the “Roadmap”). In the Roadmap, KATS identified 58 “priority products” on which it plans to focus its investigation this year. The list of priority products increased from 35 products in the previous year. KATS plans to conduct a total of five safety surveys on 4,700 products in 2025.

The Roadmap also indicates KATS’s plan to prioritise safety policies related to overseas direct-purchase products, unsafe local products (having a track record of causing fires), and increased co-operation among the relevant agencies to track illegal products in the market.

The 2025 Roadmap reflects KATS’s commitment to implementing more proactive market monitoring and investigation, especially for products that have raised safety concerns among the general public. Companies doing business in Korea, especially those offering products listed among the “priority products”, are advised to review their products’ compliance with the Korean product safety laws.

Legislative Movements to Ease the Burden of Proof in Consumer Claims

There are ongoing legislative efforts to enact laws that would further ease the consumer’s burden of proof in product safety-related cases. In the 22nd term (2024 to 2028) of the National Assembly (NA), eight bills addressing this subject were introduced, although none made it to the plenary session vote of the NA.

As an illustrative example, these bills propose the following changes in the law:

• lowering the burden of proof in auto accident cases that require expertise in complex machinery;
• shifting the burden of proof to the manufacturers to demonstrate that the alleged damage was not caused by a defect in their product; or
• adopting a more robust document production order mechanism in product liability cases.

While such legislative proposals have not received significant political attention do date, with the incoming progressive government, there may be a new drive to advance these proposals through the NA. Any such movement is likely to be met with strong opposition by businesses and industries, which may lead to an active public debate about the pros and cons of such reforms.

The AI Act Takes Effect in January 2026

The Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and the Establishment of Foundation for Reliability (the “AI Act”) is expected to take effect in January 2026.

The AI Act is the first Korean law that regulates the AI industry and related products and services. The AI Act introduces various definitions such as “AI Developer” and “AI User” and imposes duties on these actors. For instance, Article 31 of the AI Act imposes consumer disclosure obligations on companies that are AI Users, requiring them to inform consumers when a product or service is generated with the use of high impact AI or generative AI. Article 32 of the AI Act requires the AI User to take certain measures to ensure the safety of the AI system. Article 34 imposes additional obligations on AI users who use high impact AI that may have a material impact on the life, safety and fundamental rights of individuals. The AI Act also includes provisions enabling its applicability overseas.

The introduction of the AI Act may have a tangible impact on businesses in Korea that generate products or services made using AI and may open new product liability-related legal issues and enforcement efforts by competent agencies. 

Amendment to the AV Act Became Effective in March 2025

An Amendment to the Act on the Promotion and Support for the Commercialization of Autonomous Vehicles (the “AV Act”) took effect on 20 March 2025.  The amendment aims to establish a legal framework for the commercialisation of Level 4 autonomous vehicles (AV).

The amendment institutes a basic framework to prepare the industry for Level 4 AVs, such as:

• certification requirements on the structure, equipment, form, specification and performance of AVs;
• permit requirements for public institutions, public transit companies, freight businesses for operating AVs; and
• various obligations for AV manufacturers.

Although still in its early stages, if Level 4 AVs become commercialised, we may anticipate new types of product liability claims arising from incidents that occur during their operation. For instance, the developer of the self-driving software may become subject to a product liability claim. In such cases, whether a software qualifies as a “product” under the PLA may be raised as a key legal issue to be decided by the courts. Consumers may also bring product liability claims alleging defective designs in the AVs, in which case whether the statutory exemption of liability applies will become a question to be decided by the courts.