Originally from Handbook on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration, Second Edition

PREVIEW PAGE

PART I.  THE THIRD-PARTY FUNDING LANDSCAPE

1.  The TPF market in South Korea

1.1.  Please shortly describe the TPF market in your Jurisdiction.

TPF is still a relatively new concept in South Korea. There is no legal framework that expressly confirms what TPF structures would be lawful and enforceable. This uncertainty has inhibited the development of TPF in South Korea.  In recent years, there has been more discussion about adopting a regulatory framework for TPF, but there has been little tangible progress.  We recently made informal inquiries with the largest Korean law firms and the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB), but no one reported having any direct knowledge of any Korean litigation or arbitration case proceeding with funding from TPF. Nevertheless, the authors have received an inquiry from a well-known Third-Party Funder requesting an independent evaluation for a Korean litigation case it was considering funding. The funder reports that it sees great potential for the development and expansion of litigation funding in South Korea. There are signs that funders are ready to test the viability of TPF in South Korea, and we expect that the law of TPF will develop quickly once funders enter the market.

1.2.  Is it dominated by local or international Funders? Which Funders are active? Which cases typically get funded?

There are no TPF companies organized and based in South Korea. At the present time, there is no reporting requirement for TPF funding and no reliable single source of information or data for TPF activities in South Korea.