[Editorial] Coupang Cannot Stand Above the Law for Blocking Fair Trade Commission Investigation

The Korea Fair Trade Commission attempted to conduct an on-site investigation of Coupang but was forced to abandon the effort due to Coupang’s refusal. The investigation aimed to determine whether Coupang violated the Large-scale Distribution Business Act by passing coupon issuance costs on to its suppliers. Coupang’s argument for refusal was that it had not received prior notification.

The Framework Act on Administrative Investigations stipulates that a written notice must, in principle, be provided seven days before an on-site investigation. However, the same law specifies that there are exceptions in cases where there are concerns about destruction of evidence or similar risks. As Coupang has filed a lawsuit, it is now for the court to determine which side this case falls under. Nevertheless, Coupang effectively created a de facto injunction on execution by blocking entry for the on-site investigation four times, even before any court ruling was made. According to the Administrative Litigation Act, filing a cancellation lawsuit alone does not suspend the validity or enforcement of an administrative measure. There is a clear difference between “waiting for a court ruling” and “blocking the investigation ourselves until a decision is made.”

There are also underlying factors that might make the public view this situation even more unfavorably. In the United States, political figures are pressuring the Korean government, claiming that “Coupang and other American-owned companies are being targeted.” This makes it easy for suspicions to arise that Coupang is “standing firm in reliance on American political support.” Whether the company is American or Korean, and regardless of such political controversies, all businesses operating domestically must be subject to the same laws, and court rulings must be made solely in accordance with this principle. In this context, Coupang’s response only created further suspicion and placed an unnecessary burden on itself.

If the court determines that the Fair Trade Commission’s application of the exception to prior notification was illegal, the Commission must take responsibility and rectify its investigative practices. However, it should not be justified that a company under investigation can have its interpretation take precedence over the government’s investigative authority before the court’s judgment is made. Conversely, if the injunction is dismissed and the investigation is found to be legitimate, Coupang must be held strictly accountable. Procedural rights are intended to protect businesses from the abuse of administrative power; they should not serve as a tool for companies to impair the government’s market oversight functions.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.