If More Fair Trade Commission Investigations Are Excluded from the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, What Procedure Remains for the Party Under Investigation: Four Questions on Three Framework Act on Administrative Investigations Amendment Bills

The Materials Read and Their Stage

This piece reads three bills proposed by members of the National Assembly and submitted to the National Assembly. Bill No. 2220824 was proposed on August 26, 2026 at the 438th Session of the National Assembly (Extraordinary Session) by Assemblyman Lee Kang-il and 15 others, Bill No. 2221155 on September 8 at the 439th Session (Regular Session) by Assemblyman Han Chang-min and 10 others, and Bill No. 2221597 on September 28 at the same session by Assemblyman Han Min-su and 11 others. For all three, the competent committee is the National Policy Committee, and the National Assembly progress table indicates only referral to the committee on August 27, September 9, and September 29, respectively.

After reading the reasons for proposal and key contents on each screen, this piece read the reasons for proposal, amended text, supplementary provisions, and the table comparing new and old provisions from the PDF of the full text of the bill. The hwp version on the same screen was not read. The comparison table for Bill No. 2220824 was extracted from the PDF with its lines interleaved, so this piece confirmed the amendment contents within it against the amended text. Whether the bill was referred to the committee, the examination report, and whether it was merged were not displayed on the screen as of the reference date.

The reasons for proposal of Bill No. 2221597 state that the Fair Trade Commission attempted an on-site investigation of a company on suspicion of violating the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business, but that the company refused the investigation on the ground of a defect in the prior notice procedure and filed an action for revocation of the investigation. The reasons for proposal of Bill No. 2220824 likewise state that there have been instances of investigated companies refusing and obstructing investigations on the assertion that prior notice was lacking. This piece has not read the records or judgment of that case, and treats this description only as the proposer's account.

Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2220824, Assemblyman Lee Kang-il and 15 others) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221155, Assemblyman Han Chang-min and 10 others) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221597, Assemblyman Han Min-su and 11 others)

The investigation provisions of the current Framework Act on Administrative Investigations and the fair trade statutes

Article 3(1) of the current Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Act No. 19213, effective January 18, 2024) provides that administrative investigations shall be governed by this Act, except where other statutes contain special provisions. Paragraph (2) sets out seven subparagraphs of matters to which this Act does not apply, and subparagraph 7 concerns investigations by the Fair Trade Commission into violations of law under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising, the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., the Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and the Act on Special Cases Concerning Installment Transactions. Subparagraph 4 of the same paragraph excludes from application the duties of labor inspectors under Article 101 of the Labor Standards Act, and subparagraph 5 excludes matters concerning taxation, criminal matters, corrections, and security measures. Paragraph (3) provides that, notwithstanding paragraph (2), Article 4 (basic principles), Article 5 (grounds for investigation), and Article 28 (investigation through information and communications means) shall apply.

Article 17(1) requires that a demand for attendance, a demand for a report and demand for submission of materials, and an on-site entry investigation document be notified in writing at least 7 days before the commencement of the investigation. However, where it is judged that advance notice would prevent the purpose of the investigation from being achieved due to destruction of evidence or the like, they may be presented at the same time as the commencement of the investigation, or the purpose, etc. may be notified orally (subparagraph 1). In addition, Article 11(2) prohibits in principle on-site investigations before sunrise or after sunset, Article 21 provides for the submission of opinions on the contents of the prior notice, Article 22 for a request for replacement of investigators, Article 23(2) for the attendance and statements of opinion of legal and accounting experts, Article 23(3) for the audio and video recording of the investigation process, and Article 24 for notice within 7 days after the results are finalized.

The Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Act No. 22043, effective October 2, 2026) provides in Article 81 for attendance and the hearing of opinions, orders to submit materials, on-site investigation of offices, the preparation of written statements and inventory records, the return of retained items, and the issuance of documents presenting identification and stating the purpose and period of the investigation; in Article 82 for investigations within regular business hours and the investigation period; in Article 83 for the participation of an attorney in the investigation; in Article 84 for the prohibition of abuse of investigative authority; and in Article 85 for a request to postpone the investigation.

The range in which other statutes incorporate these provisions is not the same. Article 27(2) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, which is already in the list of exclusions, applies Articles 81, 84, and 98 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act mutatis mutandis. Article 38(3) of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business, which is not yet in the list, applies Articles 81(1) through 81(3), 81(6), 81(9), 84, and 85 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act mutatis mutandis, and Article 27(2) of the Fair Agency Transactions Act applies Articles 80, 81, and 83 through 85 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act mutatis mutandis. None of the three statutes applies Article 82 mutatis mutandis, and the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business and the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act do not apply Article 83 mutatis mutandis either.

Sources for this section: National Law Information Center, current Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Act No. 19213, effective January 18, 2024) · Korea Law Information Center, current Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Act No. 22043, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business (Act No. 21857, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Fair Agency Transactions Act (Act No. 21857, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (Act No. 21857, effective October 2, 2026)

What the three bills seek to change

Bill No. 2221155 adds the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business and the Fair Agency Transactions Act to the list in subparagraph 7. The reasons for proposal explain that the two statutes were enacted after the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations was enacted, and that they are similar in nature to the already-excluded Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act in that they regulate unfair trade practices that take advantage of a superior position in transactions and confer investigative and sanctioning authority on the Fair Trade Commission. The supplementary provisions take effect from the date of promulgation, and the amended provisions apply from investigations into violations of law commenced after enforcement.

Bill No. 2220824 places, in addition to the same two statutes, the Framework Act on Consumers, the Product Liability Act, and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act in the list. The reasons for proposal explain that in cases involving abuse of a superior position in distribution or transactions and in serious accident cases, prior notice carries a substantial concern of prompting destruction of evidence, such as the deletion of computer data or the forgery and alteration of safety inspection logs. The amended text leaves intact the closing phrase of subparagraph 7 — "matters concerning investigations by the Fair Trade Commission into violations of law" — and merely adds statute names. The supplementary provisions state only that they take effect from the date of promulgation and contain no application provision.

Bill No. 2221597 changes subparagraph 7 to "matters concerning investigations by the Fair Trade Commission." The reasons for proposal explain that the enumeration method of amending the list each time a statute under the Fair Trade Commission's charge is created is inefficient, that the original purport of this provision was to refrain from applying this Act to the Fair Trade Commission's investigative work as a whole, and that the statutes under its charge already provide specifically for investigation procedures. The supplementary provisions take effect from the date of promulgation and apply from investigations commenced after enforcement.

Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221155, Assemblyman Han Chang-min and 10 others) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2220824, Assemblyman Lee Kang-il and 15 others) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221597, Assemblyman Han Min-su and 11 others)

The prior notice provision already contains an exception for destruction of evidence; why should the application of the Act itself be excluded?

Among the three bills, the reasons for proposal of two raise as their core ground that the prior notice provisions, if applied as they stand at the investigation site, encourage destruction of evidence. Yet the proviso to Article 17(1), subparagraph 1 of the current Act allows, where it is judged that advance notice would prevent the purpose of the investigation from being achieved due to destruction of evidence or the like, a demand for attendance or the like to be presented at the same time as the commencement of the investigation, or notice to be given orally. Even now, in investigations to which this Act applies, written notice 7 days in advance is not always required.

Article 3(1) also gives precedence to special provisions of other statutes. Article 81(9) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, applied mutatis mutandis by the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business, requires the issuance of a document stating the purpose, period, and method of the investigation when conducting the investigation; accordingly, what relationship this document bears to the on-site entry investigation document under the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations may become a real issue. The three bills do not explain why this exception provision and the principle that special provisions prevail are insufficient, nor whether the problem lies in the contested determination of the exception or in the exception itself being too narrow.

Exclusion from application is not a device that removes prior notice alone. Apart from Article 4, Article 5, and Article 28, which Article 3(3) retains, the remaining provisions — namely, the restriction on nighttime investigations, submission of opinions, requests for replacement of investigators, attendance of experts, audio and video recording, and notification of results — fall away together. If the aim is to resolve the evidence-destruction problem of prior notice, why choose the route of excluding the application of the entire Act over the route of amending the proviso to Article 17?

Sources for this section: National Law Information Center, current Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Act No. 19213, effective January 18, 2024) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2220824, Assemblyman Lee Kang-il and 15 others) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221597, Assemblyman Han Min-su and 11 others) · Korea Law Information Center, current Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Act No. 22043, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business (Act No. 21857, effective October 2, 2026)

Once excluded from application, what procedural safeguards remain for investigations under the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business and the Fair Agency Transactions Act?

Bill No. 2221597 explains that the statutes under the Fair Trade Commission's charge already provide specifically for investigation procedures in their respective statutes. However, when confirmed against the provisions, the scope of mutatis mutandis application differs from statute to statute. Article 38(3) of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business applies only Article 81(1) through 81(3), 81(6), and 81(9) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act mutatis mutandis, so that preparation of written statements (paragraph (5)), issuance of inventory records (paragraph (7)), immediate return of retained items (paragraph (8)), and submission of opinions (paragraph (10)) are not on the list of mutatis mutandis application. Article 82, which provides for investigations within regular business hours, and Article 83, which provides for participation of an attorney, are likewise not applied mutatis mutandis.

Article 27(2) of the Fair Agency Transactions Act applies Article 81 in its entirety and Articles 83 through 85 mutatis mutandis, but does not apply Article 82. As presently read, investigations under the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business are subject to the attendance of experts under Article 23(2) of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations and the restriction on nighttime investigations under Article 11(2). Once excluded from application, these two safeguards no longer derive from the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, and so long as the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business does not apply Articles 82 and 83 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act mutatis mutandis, no basis to substitute for them appears in the statutory language.

This piece has not read the Fair Trade Commission's public notices or its internal investigation procedure rules, and therefore does not determine how participation of an attorney is operated in practice. But if the question is one of grounds at the statutory level: when broadening the exclusion from application, should the mutatis mutandis provisions of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business and the Fair Agency Transactions Act also be adjusted together to include Articles 82 and 83 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, or should the loss of the safeguards of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations be accepted as it is?

Sources for this section: National Law Information Center, current Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business (Act No. 21857, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Fair Agency Transactions Act (Act No. 21857, effective October 2, 2026) · Korea Law Information Center, current Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Act No. 22043, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Act No. 19213, effective January 18, 2024) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221597, Assemblyman Han Min-su and 11 others)

What changes if statutes that the Fair Trade Commission does not investigate are placed on the list?

Bill No. 2220824 places the Framework Act on Consumers, the Product Liability Act, and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act in subparagraph 7, but the closing phrase of subparagraph 7 remains as investigations by the Fair Trade Commission into violations of law under those statutes. In Articles 1 through 16 of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, which this piece read, there appears no sentence that also entrusts administrative investigations to the Fair Trade Commission. Articles 1 through 8 of the Product Liability Act are provisions prescribing liability for damages and exemptions in respect of product defects, extinctive prescription, and application of the Civil Act. Article 77 of the Framework Act on Consumers designates the heads of central administrative agencies as the entities for inspections and orders to submit materials.

If so, for these three statutes it is difficult to find in the statutory language an investigation satisfying the requirements of subparagraph 7 — that is, an investigation by the Fair Trade Commission into violations of law under those statutes. If the surprise on-site investigation in the serious accident case cited in the reasons for proposal refers to an investigation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor or another agency, that investigation does not fall within this phrase. Subparagraphs 4 and 5 of the current paragraph (2) already separately exclude the duties of labor inspectors and matters concerning criminal law. This piece has not confirmed which agency investigates cases of violation of the Serious Accidents Punishment Act, and under what authority.

Placing a name on the list and which investigation of which agency is in fact excluded are different questions. Is the investigation the proposer seeks to exclude an investigation by the Fair Trade Commission, or an investigation by another agency; and if it is an investigation by another agency, should not a separate subparagraph be established, rather than subparagraph 7, which names the Fair Trade Commission?

Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2220824, Assemblyman Lee Kang-il and 15 others) · National Law Information Center, current Serious Accidents Punishment Act (Act No. 17907, effective January 27, 2022) · National Law Information Center, current Product Liability Act (Act No. 14764, effective April 19, 2018) · National Law Information Center, current Framework Act on Consumers (Act No. 21444, effective September 11, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Act No. 19213, effective January 18, 2024)

If phrased comprehensively as matters concerning investigations by the Fair Trade Commission, do fact-finding surveys and investigations under statutes yet to come also fall away?

Bill No. 2221597 deletes the words "violations of law" and writes "matters concerning investigations by the Fair Trade Commission." Articles 87 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and 30 of the Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business separately provide for written fact-finding surveys for establishing a fair transaction order in the relevant transaction sector, and require written notification of the formulation of the survey plan and of the demand for submission of materials. A written fact-finding survey is an investigation that does not presuppose a suspicion of violation. Read according to its language, such investigations too may fall outside the application of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations.

The reasons for proposal explain that the original purport of this provision was to refrain from applying this Act to the Fair Trade Commission's investigative work as a whole. However, the current subparagraph 7 carries the limitation of investigations into violations of law, and since this piece has not read the legislative materials from the time of enactment, it could not confirm that account of the purport. Nor is the reason for excluding even fact-finding surveys without a suspicion of violation, while citing concerns about destruction of evidence in violation investigations, separately stated in the reasons for proposal.

The comprehensive phrase makes investigations under statutes that come under the Fair Trade Commission's charge in the future subject to exclusion from application without the National Assembly making a separate determination each time. As seen in the preceding question, the scope in which each statute under the Commission's charge applies the investigation provisions of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act mutatis mutandis differs; is it proper to exclude them wholesale, without a stage of verifying how well a new statute is furnished with investigation procedures? If changed to a comprehensive phrase, the question is whether to retain fact-finding surveys, and whether to maintain the limitation of "violations of law."

Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221597, Assemblyman Han Min-su and 11 others) · Korea Law Information Center, current Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Act No. 22043, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Act on Fair Transactions in Large Retail Business (Act No. 21857, effective October 2, 2026) · National Law Information Center, current Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Act No. 19213, effective January 18, 2024)

Commencement and remaining issues

All three bills propose to take effect from the date of promulgation. Bills No. 2221155 and No. 2221597 state that the amended provisions apply from investigations commenced after enforcement. Read according to this language, the amended provisions do not apply to investigations begun before enforcement. Bill No. 2220824 contains no application provision, so the language does not reveal whether the amended provisions apply immediately from the next step of investigations in progress as of the effective date. The proposed enforcement conditions are not fixed dates. This piece does not address what effect there may be on the pending lawsuit mentioned in the reasons for proposal.

Because the three bills amend the same subparagraph in different ways, if they are examined together, one of the two approaches — adding to the list or a comprehensive phrase — will be chosen. This piece does not predict that outcome. The remaining issues are whether broadening the exclusion from application and aligning the mutatis mutandis provisions of the statutes under the Commission's charge will be dealt with together.

This piece has not read the hwp version of each bill, the examination report and minutes of the National Policy Committee, the legislative materials from the enactment of the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations, the Fair Trade Commission's public notices and investigation procedure rules, the records and judgment of the case mentioned in the reasons for proposal, or the mutatis mutandis provisions of other listed statutes such as the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and the Act on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce. It neither supports nor opposes the three bills.

Sources for this section: National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221155, Assemblyman Han Chang-min and 10 others) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2221597, Assemblyman Han Min-su and 11 others) · National Participation Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Framework Act on Administrative Investigations (Bill No. 2220824, Assemblyman Lee Kang-il and 15 others)