후원로펌 뉴스레터

본문 바로가기
ENG
인하우스카운슬포럼

[법무법인 광장] Implementation of Pre-approval System for Cross-border M&A for Companies with National Core Technology

페이지 정보

작성일20-02-24 17:41

본문


상단 이미지

Implementation of Pre-approval System for Cross-border M&A
for Companies with National Core Technology

The Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology (the “Act”) provides for the protection of national core technologies held by Korean companies, research institutes, professional institutions and universities (each a “Protected Entity”) and prevention of their leakage. The Act was revised as of February 21, 2020 and the revised Act was went into effect on the same day. The revised Act introduces hurdles for any foreign investor seeking to obtain control over a Protected Entity (whether through a direct investment, merger or joint venture) (“Triggering Transaction”) by introducing new pre-approval and pre-notification requirements. For a Protected Entity that holds any national core technology developed with national R&D funding, the pre-approval requirement applies, which in principle prohibits any Triggering Transaction and provides for limited exceptions. For a Protected Entity that holds any national core technology developed without national R&D funding, the pre-notification requirement applies, which in principle allows any Triggering Transaction with exceptional cases for blocking it. Any foreign investor or company seeking to obtain control over a Korean company with a strong technology portfolio would need to diligence on whether any such technology is classified as a national core technology and, if so, whether it was developed with national R&D funding and assess whether any exception may be applicable.
[Summary of Revisions]

Type

Old Scheme

New Scheme

Korean entity with national core technology with government R&D funding

Agreeing to
Triggering
Transaction

Pre-reporting
(allowed in principle and exceptions for blocking)

Pre-approval
(prohibited in principle and exceptions for allowing)
 

Becoming aware of
Triggering
Transaction
Report without delayReport without delay
Korean entity with national core technology without government R&D fundingAgreeing to
Triggering
Transaction

X

Pre-reporting
(allowed in principle and exceptions for blocking) 

Becoming aware of
Triggering
Transaction
XReport without delay
1.Introduction of Pre-approval Scheme
 The old Act required a Protected Entity to report to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (the “MOTIE”) if it has developed a national core technology with government R&D funding and wish to carry out a Triggering Transaction. In such case, if it is determined that there is a material threat to national security from such national core technology being divulged, the MOTIE is authorized under the Act to suspend, prohibit or unwind the Triggering Transaction. Hence, the old scheme allowed Triggering Transactions in principle except in limited circumstances concerning national security.

Starting February 21, 2020, the revised Act requires a Protected Entity with a national core technology with government R&D funding to obtain an approval from the MOTIE prior to proceeding with any Triggering Transaction. This new scheme provides that a Triggering Transaction in such case is in principle prohibited and will be permitted in exceptional cases (see Article 11-2(1) of the new Act and Article 18-3 of the new Act’s Enforcement Decree). In addition, when approving a Triggering Transaction, the MOTIE is authorized to impose condition(s) as it deems necessary (see Article 11-2(4) of the new Act).

2.Expansion of Protected Entities
 The new Act has broadened the scope of Protected Entities to include those with national core technology developed without government R&D funding. Such Protected Entities are required to report any Triggering Transaction to MOTIE prior to completing such Triggering Transaction. If it is determined there is a material threat to national security from such national core technology being divulged, MOTIE is authorized under the Act to suspend, prohibit or unwind the Triggering Transaction (see Article 11-2(5) of the new Act and Article 18-5(3) of the new Act’s Enforcement Decree).
3.Reporting Duty on Protected Entities for Unsolicited Triggering Transaction
 If an unsolicited Triggering Transaction comes from a foreign investor or company, the Protected Entity is required to report such Triggering Transaction to MOTIE upon becoming aware of it. This duty used to apply only to Protected Entities with national core technology with government R&D funding but is now expanded to Protected Entities with national core technology without government R&D funding (see Article 11-2(6) of the new Act and Article 18-5(2) of the new Act’s Enforcement Decree).
4.Penalty for Violation
 The new Act imposes a criminal penalty of imprisonment up to 15 years or fine up to KRW 1.5 billion in the event (i) a Triggering Transaction is completed for the purpose of using national core technology abroad without pre-reporting or pre-approval or (ii) a pre-reporting was made or a pre-approval was obtained through improper means (see Articles 36(2), 14(6) and 14(6-2) of the new Act).
5.Implications
 The new Act strengthens the protection of national core technologies. If a foreign investor or company is seeking to obtain control over a Korean company with a strong technology portfolio, it would need to diligence on whether any such technology is classified as a national core technology and, if so, whether it was developed with national R&D funding and assess whether any exception may be applicable. In addition, pre-completion covenants and conditions precedent in a definitive agreement may need to address this issue to minimize execution risk.
─ CONTACT ─
Un Ho KIM
Sung Min KIM
T: +82.2.772.4979
E: sungmin.kim
@leeko.com
Profile>
Vera Eun Woo LEE
Bryan SHIN
T: +82.2.772.4761
E: bryan.shin
@leeko.com
Profile>
Vera Eun Woo LEE
Ha Yan BANG
T: +82.2.772.4902
E: hayan.bang
@leeko.com
Profile>
 
For more information pertaining to this newsletter, please contact the attorneys identified on the right.
The Lee&Ko Legal Newsletter is provided for general information purposes only and should not be considered as the rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter service, please click here or reply to this email stating UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. The contects and opinions expressed in the Lee&Ko Legal Newsletter are protected by law against any unauthorized use.

댓글목록

등록된 댓글이 없습니다.

제목
[법무법인(유한) 태평양] 유류분 제도에 대한 위헌 및 헌법불합치 결정의 내용 및 시사점 새글
[법무법인(유한) 태평양] 정년보장형 임금피크제의 유효성을 확인한 판결 새글
[법무법인(유) 화우] 의료기기 허가심사과정 상 사이버보안 적용 새글
[법무법인(유) 화우] 헌법재판소, 상속 유류분 제도 위헌 결정 새글
[법무법인(유) 화우] 미국 FTC의 인공지능 학습데이터에 관한 규제 동향 새글
[법무법인(유) 광장] Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Overturns PIPC Sanctions Against E-commerce Platform Ope…
[법무법인(유) 세종] 상장차익에 대한 증여세 부과처분과 관련하여 신뢰보호원칙, 정당한 사유 등을 주장하여 가산세 및 경정청구기한이 도과한 기납부 증여세를 환급받은 사례
[법무법인(유) 세종] 공공재정 부정수익자 제재 강화 등을 위한 공공재정환수법 개정안 시행
[법무법인(유) 세종] 공기업이 ‘발주자의 승인없이 하도급을 하였다’는 이유로 입찰참가자격제한 처분을 사전통지한 사안에서, 소송 절차를 거치지 않고 입찰참가자격제한 처분을 방어한 …
[법무법인(유) 세종] 세종Law Focus - Vol.233 (2024.04.22~04.28)
[법무법인(유) 세종] 월간 노동 뉴스레터
[법무법인(유) 세종] 유류분 제도에 대한 일부 위헌 및 헌법불합치 결정의 시사점 및 대응방안
[법무법인(유) 세종] 산업기술보호법 개정안의 내용과 그 의미
[법무법인(유) 세종] 결정형 발명의 진보성 인정 기준을 완화하는 최근의 대법원 판결 흐름을 뒤엎고 미라베그론 결정형 발명의 진보성이 부정된다는 판단을 이끌어낸 사례
[법무법인(유) 세종] 미 대선 “트럼프 재집권”시 우리 기업의 미국 비지니스에 미칠 영향: 對 미국 전기차/배터리 투자 및 무역 정책을 중심으로
게시물 검색

(사)인하우스카운슬포럼 In-House Counsel Forum

주소 : 서울시 강남구 테헤란로 625, 17층

고유번호 : 107-82-14795 | 대표자 : 박철영

대표번호 : 02-6091-1998

E-mail : reps@ihcf.co.kr

Copyright(C) IHCF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

PC 버전으로 보기