![\"Coupang](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/news-p.v1.20260805.952aed2d1b3c4b97beec400662191e1b_P1.jpg\")
Coupang Inc’s headquarters in Songpa-gu, Seoul [Yoon Chang-bin] <\/p>\n Coupang Inc’s headquarters in Songpa-gu, Seoul [Yoon Chang-bin] <\/p>\n
The Korea Fair Trade Commission conducted an on-site inspection of Coupang Inc over suspected violations of the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act, only to withdraw empty-handed, industry and government sources said Tuesday.<\/p>\n
Coupang refused to cooperate, citing procedural objections to the advance-notice requirement \u2014 marking the first time a company has outright rejected an on-site inspection under the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act since the Fair Trade Commission was established.<\/p>\n
According to industry sources and the commission, the Fair Trade Commission made four attempts to inspect Coupang’s premises \u2014 three consecutive days from Wednesday through Friday and again on Monday \u2014 to determine whether the company had improperly shifted the cost of its “price-matching coupons” onto suppliers. All four attempts failed.<\/p>\n
Coupang issues price-matching coupons when a product on its platform is more expensive than on rival online retailers, effectively lowering the price consumers pay. The commission is believed to have identified allegations that suppliers have been bearing a greater share of those coupon costs than before.<\/p>\n
Coupang’s basis for refusing the inspection was that it had not received the legally required advance notice. The Framework Act on Administrative Investigations generally requires that an inspection target be notified in writing at least seven days before an on-site inspection begins.<\/p>\n
The commission, however, maintains there was no procedural violation. It argues that advance notice may be omitted when alerting the subject beforehand would make it difficult to achieve the inspection’s purpose \u2014 for instance, by allowing evidence to be destroyed.<\/p>\n
The dispute over the legality of the inspection ultimately escalated into litigation. Coupang filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to cancel the commission’s inspection decision and simultaneously applied for a stay of execution. After learning of the filing through its internal legal team, the commission withdrew its inspectors on Monday. The on-site inspection, which had been scheduled to run through Friday, ended four days ahead of schedule.<\/p>\n
While companies have previously refused to submit documents or physically blocked inspectors from entering during Fair Trade Commission probes, experts say it is virtually unprecedented for a company to reject an investigation outright by challenging the legality of the inspection procedure itself.<\/p>\n
The commission noted that the Korea Cargo Workers’ Solidarity union had once refused an on-site inspection, but said this is the first time a company has flatly refused an inspection under the Large-Scale Distribution Business Act.<\/p>\n
Coupang said it did not refuse the commission’s investigation as such, but raised objections to the procedural legality of this particular on-site inspection.<\/p>\n
“We have fully cooperated with the Fair Trade Commission’s lawful on-site inspections and other proceedings that have been ongoing since January this year, and we are strictly complying with all procedures required by law,” the company said. “The legal obligation to provide seven days’ advance notice before an on-site inspection is a due-process requirement that protects the rights and interests of the subject of investigation. We plan to seek a court ruling on the commission’s failure to observe this procedure.”<\/p>\n
y2k@heraldcorp.com<\/p>\n
This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Coupang Inc’s headquarters in Songpa-gu, Seoul [Yoon Chang-bin] The Korea Fair Trade Commission conducted an on-site inspection of…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":132282,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[381],"tags":[426],"class_list":["post-132281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-coupang","tag-coupang"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132281"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132281\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/132282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}