This article was published on July 4, 2025, at 11:04 a.m. on the ChosunBiz RM report site.
Coupang, the leading e-commerce corporation in Korea, has been reported on the 4th to have lost a lawsuit against the Fair Trade Commission, seeking to cancel a penalty surcharge of 178 million won imposed for violations of subcontracting laws.
The administrative division 6-2 of the Seoul High Court (Chief Judge Choi Hang-seok, Baek Seung-yeop, and Hwang Eui-dong) ruled against Coupang in a lawsuit filed by Coupang and its private brand subsidiary CPLB, requesting the cancellation of the penalty surcharge and corrective order on the 25th of last month. The Fair Trade Commission's penalty surcharge lawsuit proceeds first with the Seoul High Court followed by a hearing at the Supreme Court.
The Fair Trade Commission imposed a corrective order and a penalty surcharge of 178 million won on Coupang and CPLB in February last year. The decision was based on the finding that from March 2019 to January 2022, they delegated the production of 31,405 PB products to 218 subcontractors while stating false prices on the orders issued, differing from actual delivery prices, thus violating subcontracting laws. The ordered amount was determined to be 113.4 billion won.
In response, Coupang claimed that they temporarily wrote the prices on the orders to maintain the confidentiality of the PB product prices, and stated that they issued estimates and invoices stating the actual purchase price thereafter, arguing that this did not constitute a legal violation. They also claimed to have obtained consent from the subcontractors regarding this.
However, the Seoul High Court found that Coupang had violated subcontracting laws. Article 3 of the subcontracting law states that 'when a primary contractor (Coupang) delegates manufacturing, etc., to a subcontractor, a written document containing the contract details, including the payment method and conditions for adjusting the subcontract price, must be issued before the subcontractor begins work for delivery.'
The court stated, "The purpose of this regulation is to protect subcontractors from disadvantages due to unclear contractual terms," adding, "Coupang's order qualifies as a 'written document' under subcontracting law, and stating false prices rather than the actual purchase price constitutes a legal violation."
Regarding Coupang's claim that 'the subcontractors agreed in advance,' the court remarked, "Considering that in general subcontracting contracts, the primary contractor is in a superior position compared to the subcontractor, it would have been difficult for the subcontractors to refuse Coupang's demands." Furthermore, regarding Coupang's assertion that they were attempting to maintain the confidentiality of the PB product delivery prices, the court opined that they 'could have taken alternative actions that would not violate the law,' thus rejecting the argument.