The business community is closely watching Bom Kim's lawsuit over the designation of the same person at Coupang Inc. The issue is not limited to whether Kim can be seen as the "owner." The crux is on what grounds the Korea Fair Trade Commission excluded this year the "corporate same-person exception" it had applied when designating the Coupang entity as the same person in 2024 and 2025, and to what extent a founder's relatives' roles can be viewed as "management participation" under the enforcement decree.
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) changed this year's same person to Kim, seeing that Kim's younger brother, Kim Yu-seok, participated in managing domestic affiliates. Coupang filed a suit to revoke the decision and sought an injunction, and the Administrative Division 7 of the Seoul High Court suspended the effect of the disposition ex officio until July 15. At the hearing on the 16th, the court asked the FTC to clearly present the decisive grounds that overturned its previous judgment.
This trial is the first courtroom test to gauge the operating standards of the corporate same-person exception established in 2024. Depending on how far the court recognizes the FTC's judgment, it could affect the designation of the same person for large corporate groups controlled by founders with foreign nationality.
◇ Why the corporate same-person exception became a legal issue
The same person is the benchmark used by the FTC when determining the de facto controller of a large corporate group. The scope of affiliates, disclosure obligations, and the range of regulations applied to the owner family can vary based on the same person.
The corporate same-person exception is based on Article 38, Paragraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Even if there is a natural person who substantially controls a corporate group, if the scope of domestic affiliates is the same and there is no equity investment, management participation, or financial transactions by that natural person and their relatives—lowering concerns of private interest appropriation—the system allows designating a corporation, not an individual, as the same person.
This system is assessed as a device with IT and platform corporations in mind, which have governance structures different from traditional chaebol. It reflects the view that if a founder controls a corporate group but relatives do not engage in affiliate management or conduct internal transactions with personal companies, designating a natural person as the same person across the board would be excessive.
Attorney Baek Gwang-hyeon of Barun Law LLC said, "Unlike traditional chaebol, IT and platform corporations sometimes show structures where a founder's relatives do not participate in affiliate management or have no internal transactions with personal companies," adding, "If there is no difference in the scope of the corporate group, no management participation or investment by relatives, and concerns of private interest appropriation are blocked, designating the corporation itself as the same person functions to enhance regulatory compliance."
Coupang and Dunamu were both designated as corporate same persons in 2024, the first year of the system's application, and retained the same status in 2025. However, this year, while the FTC kept Dunamu as a corporate same person, it changed Coupang's same person to Chair Kim, citing Kim Yu-seok's participation in managing domestic affiliates.
◇ FTC: "Substantial influence"… Coupang: "Dispatched expert"
The first issue in this lawsuit is whether Kim Yu-seok's role can be seen as management participation. Kim did not hold equity in domestic affiliates nor was he listed as a registered executive. However, the FTC views that, considering his rank and compensation, chairing meetings, work reporting, and indications of involvement in decision-making, he substantially participated in management.
The FTC cited Kim's vice president-level position, an internal grade close to that of a CEO of key affiliates, compensation and treatment equivalent to a registered executive, chairing meetings related to logistics and delivery policies, and de facto influence over the direction of business execution. At the hearing, the FTC also presented three pillars—executive-level status, participation in decision-making, and influence over operations—arguing that Kim chaired meetings and received reports on major pending issues.
Coupang countered that Kim Yu-seok was merely an expert performing logistics efficiency improvement tasks as a dispatched employee belonging to Coupang Inc, not an executive of a domestic affiliate. Its position is that he had no approval authority, sanctioning authority, or investment decision-making power. It also argued that Kim left the country in December last year, and his dispatch ended in April this year, so as of the disposition date of May 1, he could not have participated in the management of a domestic company. In response to ChosunBiz's inquiry, Coupang said, "We will provide detailed explanations in court."
This is also where the business community is focusing. Depending on whether management participation can be recognized based solely on circumstances such as rank, compensation, chairing meetings, and work reporting when a relative does not hold equity and is not a registered executive, the scope of applying the corporate same-person exception could change.
Attorney Baek said, "The FTC and the courts do not confine themselves to formal indicators such as equity holdings or registered executive status," adding, "Practically, whether substantial influence was exercised becomes a much more important yardstick." He explained, "Rank, compensation, meeting attendance, and work reporting can be key factors in determining whether relatives participated in management."
◇ The FTC must prove the grounds for overturning its prior judgment
Another issue is how much grounds the FTC must present when changing its prior judgment to a disadvantage. The FTC designated the Coupang entity as the same person in 2024 and 2025, then changed it this year to Chair Kim. This is why the court asked the FTC for the "decisive grounds seen differently from before."
Attorney Baek said, "If the FTC withdraws recognition of the corporate same-person exception, which is a beneficial administrative act, or changes it disadvantageously to designating a natural person as the same person, it must pass the administrative-law principles of protection of trust and proportionality," adding, "It does not seem easy to change its stance lightly based only on minor changes in circumstances."
Ultimately, the meaning of this lawsuit lies more in setting standards than in its ripple effects. If the FTC's judgment is upheld, the corporate same-person exception is likely to be operated as a device that examines not only whether relatives hold equity but also their substantive roles. Conversely, if Coupang's claims are accepted, it could lead to a direction in which the FTC must more concretely prove substantive decision-making authority and concerns of private interest appropriation when determining that the exception requirements are not met.
A legal professional who formerly worked at the FTC said, "As this is the first courtroom test since the enforcement decree was introduced, it will serve as a touchstone for future operation of the system."