[Editorial] Stay on Coupang’s Designated Controller Status Calls for Full Review of Person-Centered Regulation

The Seoul High Court has suspended the effect of the Fair Trade Commission’s designation of Kim Beom-seok, Chairman of the Board of Coupang Inc., as the “same person” until 30 days after the court renders its judgment on the merits. This decision does not constitute a final ruling confirming the illegality of the FTC’s disposition. However, because the court found that the disposition could cause irreparable harm, it has become an important opportunity to reconsider the problems with the current same-person system.

The FTC had previously designated Coupang Corp. as the same person, but this year it changed its designation standard and determined that Chairman Kim Beom-seok is the same person. For the same business group, a change in the administrative authority’s standards and interpretation has altered not only the regulatory target but also the responsible party. If businesses cannot predict in advance whether regulations will apply and the scope of liability, legal stability and the credibility of regulation are bound to be undermined.

Under the current same-person system, an individual who effectively controls a business group is designated, and that individual is burdened with broad responsibility to submit data concerning the entire business group. Every year, the same person must identify and submit to the FTC information such as the shareholdings of the individual, the individual’s spouse and relatives, and specially related parties, as well as details of transactions involving affiliates.

If materials are omitted or submitted inaccurately, criminal liability may even be imposed on the individual designated as the same person. Yet it is far removed from reality to assume that the same person can, in practice, identify and submit information on the assets and transactions of all relatives and affiliated persons. When the authority to access such information or compel its submission is limited, imposing only sweeping liability is also inconsistent with the principle that responsibility should correspond to one’s actual capacity and fault.

In particular, as corporate ownership structures and management methods become more complex and investors and affiliates are spread across multiple countries, a method that expands the scope of data submission around blood ties and individuals inevitably has its limits. A regulatory approach that broadens the target first, rather than asking whether submission is realistically possible, only increases administrative burdens and the risk of criminal punishment.

The purpose of business-group regulation should not be the broad tracking of a particular individual’s family relationships and assets. It should focus on regulating specific conduct that harms market order, such as unfair internal transactions, tunneling, restrictions on competition, and abuse of market dominance. Simply because a company is large, continuously expanding obligations unrelated to actual illegal conduct can hardly be regarded as rational regulation.

This court decision raises the issue of creating regulatory standards that are clear, predictable, and actually implementable no matter which company they are applied to. Preferences for or against a particular company must be distinguished from the validity of the system itself.

As digital platforms, multinational investment, and professional management systems spread, the traditional regulatory approach of identifying a single natural person as the party responsible for an entire business group has also become increasingly out of step with reality. There is a need to shift to a method of determining actual control relationships through objective criteria such as ownership stakes, voting rights, board composition, and influence over key management decisions.

The Fair Trade Commission should not merely wait for the outcome of the merits litigation, but should comprehensively reexamine both the standards for same-person designation and the data submission system. Rather than imposing sweeping liability on an individual, it is more reasonable to require corporations and each affiliate to take responsibility for the information they possess and manage. The scope of data submission obligations and criminal liability should also be adjusted to match actual authority to access information.

The government and the National Assembly should use this decision as an opportunity to improve outdated business-group regulation centered on individuals and relatives. Businesses should be regulated, but we must move away from a system that imposes unlimited liability on individuals unrelated to a company’s unlawful conduct. The purpose of regulation and the party responsible must be made clear, and the system should be restructured to precisely regulate conduct that harms fair competition.

2026. 7. 16.

Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

---

Original title: [논평] 쿠팡 동일인 지정 효력정지, 사람 중심 규제 전면 재검토해야

Author: Center for Free Enterprise (CFE)

Date: 2026-07-16

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=comment&pn=1&idx=29287