The National Assembly held a public hearing to introduce a "strategic export finance fund" to back export financing for national strategic industries such as the defense industry and nuclear power generation. There is no disagreement on the need for a strategic export finance fund, but opinions diverged among the ruling and opposition parties and experts over the specific contributions.
The National Assembly's Strategy and Finance Committee held a full session on the 29th and convened a public hearing on the "act on support for strategic export finance." The bill would create a separate fund to support export finance in strategic industries such as defense and nuclear power, where there are many ultra-large, long-term contracts that are difficult to support with existing policy finance alone. Although support has been centered on The Export-Import Bank of Korea and Korea Trade Insurance Corporation (K-sure), the legislative intent is that institutional limits have surfaced as exports have expanded.
At the hearing, various views were presented on the fund's contributions. Kwon Heon-cheol, a professor in the Department of Defense Economics at the National Defense University, cited the offset trade structure of defense exports and said, "Since government support is involved, it is necessary to consider the beneficiary-pays principle." Park Chang-gyun, a senior research fellow at the Korea Capital Market Institute, said, "There are limits to expanding the Export-Import Bank's capital every time a large-scale defense export occurs, so it is necessary to respond quickly and stably through a separate fund."
By contrast, attorney Park In-yong at YulChon said, "Corporate export competitiveness must not be undermined by imposing contributions," adding, "Because the basis for calculating the assessment rate is broadly delegated to a presidential decree rather than set in law, corporations' predictability could suffer." Ahn Sang-nam, Deputy Minister at the Korea Defense Industry Association, said, "The burden on defense firms could increase," and added, "It is necessary to limit the use of funds to the defense sector."
The ruling and opposition parties also differed. The government and the ruling party say a swift launch of the fund is needed to respond to competition for large orders. The government, in particular, has cited a roughly $44 billion defense contract signed with Poland in 2022 to stress the need to secure separate funding. Kim Young-hwan, a Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker, said, "Defense exports have a structure in which various opportunity costs arise in the process of government guarantees and funding," adding, "An approach that factors in even the invisible costs, such as the government's diplomatic and R&D support, is needed." Because the defense industry benefits from government support, the intent is that corporations should shoulder a certain portion of the contributions.
The opposition, on the other hand, is pushing back, saying that the contribution burden could undermine defense firms' export competitiveness. They argue that adjusting the credit limits of existing policy finance institutions could also address the issue. They also raised the possibility of double burdens on corporations due to overlap with the act on the development and support of the defense industry pending in the National Defense Committee.
Park Sung-hoon, a People Power Party lawmaker, said, "The contributions described in the bill are in effect quasi-tax in nature," adding, "We need differential assessment standards that consider the size and risk of beneficiary corporations. Specific assessment rates and factors reflecting circumstances should be sufficiently included in the bill."