Asking Presidential Candidates: How to Eliminate 'Invisible Regulations' for Startups

Sent Inquiry Letters to 5 Presidential Candidates Including Law Firm Mission
Classified Types Such as Entrenched Interests Resistance, Inter-Agency Passing, Passive Administration
Asked for Practical Regulatory Improvement Measures and Published Responses... Joint Declaration Underway

Ride-sharing service 'Tada' vehicle [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Bo-kyung] "Although regulatory reform is being called for, arbitrary regulations by responsible public officials are rampant on the ground, tightening the noose on companies and entrepreneurs with 'invisible regulations.'"

Legal professionals specializing in startups have rolled up their sleeves to improve the 'invisible regulations' experienced in the field. They are asking five presidential candidates specific strategies and policies to resolve regulations and are attempting to find solutions.

Invisible regulations refer to restrictions on citizens' rights and imposition of obligations without legal grounds. These are practical regulations arbitrarily created by responsible public officials despite the absence of laws, ordinances, or rules, making it difficult for anyone other than those involved on the ground to even start discussions for amendments.

Accordingly, the startup-specialized law firm Mission, Startup Forest, and the startup legal support group SHERPA recently sent a 'Invisible Regulation Policy Questionnaire' to the five candidates for the 20th presidential election (Lee Jae-myung, Yoon Seok-youl, Ahn Cheol-soo, Sim Sang-jung, Kim Dong-yeon).

Over the past month, they collected cases of invisible regulations from startup stakeholders and classified them into five types. The regulations are categorized as ▲incumbent resistance ▲positive regulation ▲creation of regulations through guidelines and instructions ▲passing the buck between ministries ▲passive administration.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

First, incumbent resistance refers to cases where existing stakeholders strongly resist new services, and even without explicit prohibitions, the service is banned through authoritative interpretation, judicial decisions, or legal amendments. The 'Tada Ban Law,' which prohibits ride-sharing services by amending the Passenger Transport Act due to opposition from the taxi industry despite no explicit regulatory provisions banning ride-sharing services, falls into this category.

Korean law follows a positive regulation approach. Whenever a new industry emerges, new systems and regulations must be established each time, and it is difficult to operate a business before system improvements are made. For example, the launch of P2E games is prohibited due to regulatory gaps concerning virtual assets.

Even if unreasonable laws can be amended, it is difficult to control unreasonable guidelines, notifications, or instructions. Acts such as prohibiting mileage transfers in webboard games in the form of 'recommendations to prevent gambling' without clear legal grounds fall into this category.

The NFT (Non-Fungible Token) taxation issue continues to be uncertain as the Ministry of Economy and Finance, National Tax Service, and Financial Services Commission pass the buck between ministries, and some entrepreneurs face difficulties in business promotion because legal interpretations and regulations vary by local district offices.

Law firm Mission and others plan to hold a forum at the end of this month to hear the presidential candidates' responses and summarize common points among candidates to proceed with a joint declaration for regulatory resolution.

Attorney Ok Da-hye said, "In a situation where arbitrary regulations have become the norm, opening the future of the startup ecosystem is a distant task," adding, "We plan to disclose the candidates' responses to the public and announce the comparative evaluation results."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.