This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz RM Report site at 4:16 p.m. on Oct. 22, 2025.
In a case where Naver was hit with a 26.6 billion won penalty surcharge for making products listed on its own open market platform appear at the top of search results, the Supreme Court recently returned the case with a decision to remand, effectively saying there was "no violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act." That result is the exact opposite of the case in which Google received a penalty surcharge of about 3 trillion won from the European Union (EU) for a similar reason and lost in court. ChosunBiz on the 22nd looked into the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's remand decision.
◇ Supreme Court: "Naver favored its own products, but that is not a violation of law"
In 2020, the Korea Fair Trade Commission imposed a 26.6 billion won penalty surcharge and a corrective order on Naver for alleged violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. According to the KFTC's findings, from 2012 to 2020 when online shopping consumers searched for certain products, Naver adjusted its search algorithm so that products from Smart Store, Naver's open market platform, would be displayed at the top. The KFTC said this allowed Naver to discriminate against rivals in the online shopping market such as Gmarket, 11Street, Auction, and Interpark.
Naver filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the penalty surcharge and corrective order. Trials over KFTC penalty surcharge cases proceed without going through a district court, moving from the Seoul High Court to the Supreme Court for finalization. The Seoul High Court also reached the same conclusion as the KFTC.
However, on the 16th the Supreme Court overturned the appellate ruling and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court. The Supreme Court said, "There is insufficient basis to conclude that Naver's adjustment of its search algorithm hindered market competition," adding, "A business operator may design a search algorithm that determines product exposure rankings to reflect its own value judgments and business strategy." The Supreme Court also said, "It is true that Naver favored its own products," but it could not be deemed a violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.
◇ Legal community: "A finding that Naver is not a monopolist and did not restrict competition"
In its remand decision in Naver's favor, the Supreme Court did not directly cite domestic or foreign cases. But Kim & Chang and Jipyong LLC, which represented Naver, were said to have presented the cases of Google and Coupang.
In 2017, Google was fined 2.42 billion euros (about 3 trillion won at the time) by the European Commission for violating antitrust law through its shopping service. The EU found that "Google, with a 90% share of the European search market, distorted search results to benefit its services such as shopping, travel, and local search." The EU court later reached the same conclusion.
Kim & Chang and Jipyong were said to have pointed out that there is a large gap between Naver's and Google's market shares. Naver's domestic market share is in the 50% range, and its online shopping market share is 20%. That is far lower than Google's share in the EU market.
A legal professional said, "In the EU market, Google is a monopolist with a 90% share, and one could say that consumers are greatly limited in online search or shopping if they do not go through Google," adding, "The Supreme Court likely took into account that Naver's market share is not at that level."
They also argued that during the period when Naver favored its own products by adjusting its algorithm, other online shopping businesses grew. The KFTC said Naver manipulated its algorithm from 2012 to 2020, while Coupang, founded in 2010, launched Rocket Delivery in 2014 and rapidly expanded its market share.
A legal professional said, "Even during the period when Naver adjusted its algorithm, effective competition occurred as other businesses entered the market and expanded their shares," adding, "It means there was no issue of excluding competitors."