This article was posted on the ChosunBiz RM Report site at 3:58 p.m. on Apr. 24, 2026.
#. The head of a well-known confectionery company in a provincial area, identified as A, filed a lawsuit on the 21st seeking 20 million won in damages against three sugar producers—CJ CheilJedang, Samyang Corporation and TS Corporation. A said the three companies, which effectively hold an oligopoly over the sugar market, colluded to fix prices for more than four years, increasing cost burdens.
#. The Korea Confectionery Association, which has 4,000 member companies nationwide, is also reviewing a damages suit against sugar and flour milling companies. Most members are small business owners such as neighborhood bakeries and confectionery shops, and the group said losses have piled up due to surging materials and supplies prices.
The sugar price-fixing case is showing signs of spreading into a wave of lawsuits across the industry. In Feb., the Korea Fair Trade Commission ruled that the three sugar producers colluded on sugar prices and imposed a total penalty surcharge of 408.3 billion won along with corrective orders. On the 23rd, the Seoul Central District Court also delivered guilty verdicts against the sugar companies indicted for collusion. Legal experts said the key issue of intent or negligence—the crux of civil damages suits—has effectively been established.
◇ Buying 200 million won of sugar, theoretically up to 33.72 million won can be claimed
The key is the actual compensation amount. Under Article 109 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, a business harmed by collusion can seek punitive damages of up to three times the actual loss. For a colluding company granted leniency, only the actual loss can be claimed.
So how is the actual loss calculated? The legal community points to precedent from the past "flour cartel case." In 2006, Samlip Foods filed a damages suit against CJ CheilJedang and Samyang Corporation for colluding on flour prices. The court factored in variables such as raw wheat prices and exchange rates, and calculated the loss as the difference between the price that would have formed absent collusion and the actual transaction price. As a result, it recognized 1.5 billion won—5.62% of the total purchase amount during the collusion period—as the loss, and the Supreme Court finalized the ruling in 2012.
Considering that a punitive damages system for Fair Trade Act violations was introduced in 2018, some interpret that, in theory, up to 16.86%—three times the 5.62% recognized then—can be claimed. If the total sugar purchase amount during the collusion period is 100 million won, up to 16.86 million won could be compensated; if it is 1 billion won, up to 168.6 million won.
In this lawsuit, A claimed 20 million won, about 10% of the approximately 200 million won in total sugar purchases during the collusion period. The amount was reportedly set relatively conservatively, considering both past precedents and the likelihood of actual recognition.
◇ Can consumers sue too? Proof and statute of limitations are variables
Many analysts say it is realistically difficult for ordinary consumers to bring damages suits against sugar producers. They would have to prove their sugar purchases during the collusion period, and it is also hard to isolate the portion of price increases in processed foods and dining out attributable to higher sugar costs.
By contrast, for the alleged fuel price collusion by refiners being examined by prosecutors and the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC), observers see greater potential for individual consumer lawsuits. A lawyer at a major law firm said, "Individuals appear able to seek damages because they can relatively clearly prove fuel purchases with credit card records."
However, the statute of limitations is a factor. Claims for damages arising from violations of the Fair Trade Act are subject to a short three-year statute of limitations. In the 2012 fertilizer cartel case, some farmers were unable to sue because the limitation period had expired.
Experts say that to stop recurring collusion crimes, there must be substantial compensation for victims.
Jeong Tae-won, an attorney at LKB & Partners and a former legal adviser at the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC), said, "Criminal punishment and penalty surcharges alone make it hard to eradicate collusion," adding, "Victims need to actively pursue civil litigation, and courts should broadly recognize punitive damages to reduce corporations' incentives to collude."