[Editorial] Designating Bom Kim as Coupang’s controlling owner: South Korea must avoid worsening tensions with the United States

On the 29th, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) designated Bom Kim, chairman of Coupang, Inc., as the same person, or controlling owner. Since Coupang was designated as a conglomerate in 2021, the company had been treated as the legal entity itself, but after five years, the designation has shifted to Kim, a natural person. The KFTC said it made the decision because the newly confirmed management involvement of Kim’s younger brother, Kim Yu-seok, meant the exception for designating a natural person was not met. With this designation, Kim will now be subject to various regulations under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA). Disclosure obligations, including information on overseas affiliates, will expand significantly, and responsibilities and duties such as rules against private gain will become much stricter.
This decision should be seen as a measure based on law and principle. If strict same-person rules are applied to domestic corporate leaders while exceptions are granted simply because a founder holds foreign nationality, accusations of reverse discrimination could follow. Coupang has grown on the basis of Korean consumers, sellers, and logistics networks, and it wields enormous influence in the domestic market. In that context, the demand to clearly identify the controlling entity cannot be dismissed lightly.
That said, any possibility that this issue could escalate into a South Korea–United States trade or diplomatic dispute must be blocked. Kim is a U.S. citizen, and Coupang’s parent company is listed in the United States. From the U.S. side, there is room to argue that foreign investors are being treated unfairly. Legal action over Coupang’s personal data leak has already become a risk factor in bilateral disputes. Last week, 54 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to the Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States of America, calling for an end to discrimination against Coupang. In response, more than 90 lawmakers from the ruling bloc in South Korea held a press conference on the 28th, urging the United States Congress and the United States government not to pressure the Government of the Republic of Korea over the Coupang issue.
There has been no previous case in which South Korea and the United States have confronted each other over a single company issue in this way. The behavior of U.S. lawmakers was excessive, but there was no need for our side to react so strongly. The point is that proper law enforcement should not become the spark for unnecessary back-and-forth between lawmakers or a trigger for friction between South Korea and the United States. The government must clearly explain and persuade the United States about the application of domestic law and the overall procedures related to Coupang. It should specifically make clear that this measure is not aimed at any particular nationality or company, but is a legitimate action that applies the same standards to domestic and foreign companies alike.
Separately, the same-person designation system clearly needs a fundamental overhaul. The system was introduced to prevent the sprawling expansion and private enrichment of conglomerate founding families. Today, however, the business environment has changed in ways that would have been unimaginable in the past: borderless investment, overseas listings, and founders with foreign nationality. Companies are growing in this environment. Applying regulations designed for family-controlled conglomerates of the 1980s to today’s advanced companies is anachronistic. Regulations that are 40 years old will only clip the wings of innovative firms. Coupang should be investigated and handled according to law and principle, but the same-person designation system itself must also be reformed without delay.