"Just Following the Law" vs. "Collusive Schemes": Shipping and Mobile Carriers Clash with KFTC over 190 Billion Won

Published 18 Mar.2026 15:37(KST)

Shipping companies (carriers) and mobile carriers accused of collusion are currently engaged in legal battles with the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), asserting that their actions were legitimate under the law. As these companies present their own legal grounds and justifications, there is growing attention on the outcome of these lawsuits.

More Than 10 Lawsuits Ongoing Over Maritime Freight Rate Collusion

In January 2022, the KFTC announced corrective orders and imposed a fine of 96.2 billion won on 23 domestic and foreign shipping companies. This was due to collusion over maritime freight rates on the Korea-Southeast Asia routes. Both domestic carriers such as HMM and Korea Marine Transport (KMTC), as well as foreign carriers including Evergreen Marine and Yang Ming Marine Transport, were subject to these sanctions. The KFTC found that these companies had colluded on freight rates 120 times over a 15-year period since December 2003. The KFTC cited several practices: conducting freight rate audits; imposing penalties on carriers that violated agreements; and refusing to load cargo for shippers who did not accept the agreed rates. In June 2022, the KFTC further announced it would sanction both domestic and foreign carriers for collusion on freight rates for the Korea-China and Korea-Japan routes.

The Law Times

The shipping companies filed lawsuits challenging the KFTC’s sanctions, arguing that their actions were justified under the Marine Transportation Act, and that they should not be subject to the Fair Trade Act. More than ten related lawsuits are pending before the Seoul High Court.

Article 29, Paragraph 1 of the Marine Transportation Act allows international cargo carriers to engage in joint activities regarding freight rates, vessel deployment, and cargo loading. Given that the shipping industry has extremely high fixed costs and that freight rates fluctuate significantly with economic cycles, allowing unrestrained price competition can lead to monopolization by large companies. To prevent this, countries around the world, including Korea, permit a certain level of joint conduct among carriers.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of the KFTC. This was in the lawsuit between Evergreen Marine and the KFTC (2024Du35446). The Supreme Court overturned the previous judgment, stating, "It is unlawful to conclude that the Fair Trade Act does not apply to the carriers' joint conduct." However, disputes continue despite the Supreme Court's decision. On March 11, arguments continued in the lawsuit between HMM and the KFTC (2022Nu55752). HMM argued that, depending on whether there was a filing, the Marine Transportation Act could take precedence over the Fair Trade Act, and sought further judicial review. Article 29, Paragraph 2 of the Marine Transportation Act stipulates that international cargo carriers must report joint conduct to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries.

Three Major Mobile Carriers Sue the KFTC

In March 2025, the KFTC announced corrective orders and imposed a fine of approximately 114 billion won on the three major mobile carriers. The fine was later reduced to 96.3 billion won, but the mobile carriers filed separate lawsuits protesting the KFTC’s sanctions. The KFTC determined that the three carriers colluded between 2015 and 2022 by sharing data on changes in mobile number portability through a task force and by adjusting sales incentives. This task force was a group jointly operated by the three carriers and the Korea Association for ICT Promotion (KAIT) to ensure compliance with the Mobile Device Distribution Act.

Among the three lawsuits, the proceedings for the case filed by KT began first (2025Nu7552). At the hearing on January 15, KT argued that the KFTC’s perception of the task force was misguided. KT asserted that the three carriers and KAIT operated the task force to comply with the Mobile Device Distribution Act, and that the Korea Communications Commission provided administrative guidance to prevent concentration of number portability with a single carrier.

The Mobile Device Distribution Act was introduced in October 2014 to address market disruption caused by disorderly subsidy competition in the mobile phone distribution market. At that time, the three mobile carriers engaged in fierce competition for new subscribers, offering large-scale illegal subsidies for new handset launches. Abnormal transactions such as "free phones" became widespread, and there was criticism that price discrimination based on sign-up timing and information access undermined consumer welfare.

Currently, however, the Mobile Device Distribution Act has been repealed. This was due to criticism that the Act restricted consumers' choices by limiting subsidy amounts.