This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz RM Report website at 5:14 p.m. on Mar. 23, 2026.
The four major commercial banks were hit with a 272 billion won penalty surcharge by the Korea Fair Trade Commission on suspicion of restricting the loan limit through an information exchange during the process of adjusting the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
The banks filed administrative lawsuits in protest, but because the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) did not refer the case to prosecutors, it did not proceed to criminal proceedings. In legal and financial circles, various interpretations are emerging about why the assessments of administrative sanctions and criminal liability diverged.
According to legal and financial circles on the 24th, KB Kookmin, Shinhan, Hana, and Woori Bank are said to have filed lawsuits the previous day with the court to cancel the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC)'s penalty surcharge disposition of 272 billion won. The previous day was the deadline to file the administrative suits.
This case is the first application of the "information exchange collusion" provision introduced by the 2021 amendment to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) determined that in the process of adjusting the LTV ratio with reference to each other's information, the amount available for loans was reduced, thereby restricting market competition. The basis for calculating the penalty surcharge was related revenue of about 6.8 trillion won.
◇Seventh-largest penalty surcharge on record, but no criminal referral
Although the amount ranks as the seventh-highest penalty surcharge ever imposed on banks, there has been no movement toward criminal proceedings. Under the exclusive complaint system for violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, prosecutors can file charges only if there is a complaint from the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC). But according to prosecutors, there was no complaint filed by the commission in connection with this LTV collusion case.
In legal circles, there is analysis that the difficulty of proving illegality and intent in criminal trials for "soft concerted actions," such as information exchange, may have influenced this assessment. Traditional forms of collusion (hardcore concerted actions), such as price fixing, production restrictions, and bid rigging, have clear anticompetitive effects and thus clear illegality, but soft concerted actions like information exchange may have ambiguous actual anticompetitive effects, requiring more meticulous investigation.
An antitrust specialist attorney at a major law firm said, "The Supreme Court has also shown that it should be cautious in recognizing intent for conduct whose anticompetitive nature is not clear," adding, "If it is difficult to conclude that a business operator clearly recognized at the time of the information exchange that anticompetitive effects would occur, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) may have felt burdened about referring the case to prosecutors."
However, some in legal and financial circles note that if it was difficult to prove anticompetitive effects, the penalty surcharge should not have been imposed in the first place. They also say that, considering the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) recently imposed about 3.1 billion won in penalty surcharges in a pork price-fixing case and referred it to prosecutors, corporations face significant uncertainty about the criteria used to decide whether to refer cases.
◇No investigation without a Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) complaint... will the exclusive complaint system be abolished
This case also highlighted, once again, structural issues with the exclusive complaint system under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. The system was created to prevent excessive complaints and accusations and to avoid constraining corporate management, but criticism has persisted that the start of criminal proceedings can hinge on the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC)'s judgment. In fact, the number of cases the commission has referred and the number of individuals referred have been declining recently.
Within the government, there are calls to abolish the exclusive complaint system. President Lee Jae-myung said at a Cabinet meeting on Feb. 3, "Why must fair trade cases require someone to file a complaint, and if there is no complaint, why are investigation, indictment, and even punishment all impossible," noting the need for institutional reform. Korea Fair Trade Commission Chair Ju Biung-ghi also said at a National Policy Committee briefing on the 23rd of the same month, "In principle, it is desirable to abolish the exclusive complaint system. That is my conviction."
With the possibility being raised that investigative authority over fair trade cases will be transferred to the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, there are also calls that, for cases with criminal penalty provisions, investigative bodies should be able to review the nature of the case at a certain stage.
An attorney who formerly served as a deputy chief prosecutor said, "There have indeed been cases where investigations did not proceed simply because there was no Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) complaint," adding, "If a case could result in criminal penalties, at a minimum there should be a channel for investigative bodies to verify related information."