Hello, this is Cheongchul Law Firm.

"Can reporting a cartel really pay hundreds of millions of won?" It is not an exaggeration. The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) pays a whistleblower reward to anyone who reports a violation and submits evidence proving it, and in June 2026 the previous KRW 3 billion ceiling was abolished. Still, reporting alone does not guarantee money. Below we explain how the reward is calculated and what an employee must check before blowing the whistle.

[Contents]

1. The KRW 3 billion cap on cartel rewards is gone

2. Which violations qualify for a reward

3. The amount is decided by the grade of your evidence

4. Three things an insider must check before reporting

5. Protections exist, but they are not airtight

1. The KRW 3 billion cap on cartel rewards is gone

The KFTC has long paid rewards to people who report violations of competition laws and submit evidence proving them. Until recently the payout was capped at KRW 3 billion no matter how large the case, but a rule change in June 2026 removed that ceiling.

According to the KFTC, in a cartel case where total fines of KRW 670 billion were imposed, a report backed by top-grade evidence could translate into a reward of up to KRW 67.1 billion. The example shows that the reward is tied both to the size of the fine and to the value of the evidence.

2. Which violations qualify for a reward

Article 80(2) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act provides that "anyone may report a violation of this Act to the Fair Trade Commission." There is no restriction on who may file.

Nor is the reward limited to cartels. It also covers violations of the Subcontracting Act, the Large Retail Business Act, the Agency Transactions Act and the Franchise Business Act, among other statutes enforced by the KFTC. A report does not automatically become a reward, however: the case must lead to an investigation in which the violation is established and action is actually taken.

3. The amount is decided by the grade of your evidence

Rewards are graded according to the quality of the evidence submitted, and the payout ratio differs by grade. Under the KFTC's operating standards, top-grade evidence corresponds to a 100% ratio, mid-grade to roughly 50% and low-grade to roughly 30%.

In other words, rumours or circumstantial statements will not produce a large payout. What matters is material that directly proves the agreement and its implementation: emails exchanged with competitors, minutes recording price or volume agreements, internal reports and contract documents.

How the evidence is obtained also matters. Material collected unlawfully not only loses value as proof but can expose the reporter to separate legal liability.

4. Three things an insider must check before reporting

First, your own involvement and criminal exposure. An employee who took part in the cartel may also face sanctions or criminal prosecution. Article 14(1) of the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers Act allows a court to reduce or waive the penalty where the whistleblower's own offence is discovered in connection with the report, but this is discretionary, not automatic.

Second, the relationship with corporate leniency. Article 44 of the Fair Trade Act allows corrective orders and fines to be reduced or waived, and criminal referral to be foregone, for a party that voluntarily reports a cartel or cooperates by providing evidence (including current and former employees). If the company files for leniency first, the value and ranking of an individual report can change, so timing is decisive.

Third, the risk of retaliation inside the company. Personnel action, exclusion from work and termination of contractual relationships are realistic risks that should be anticipated. Where the reporter personally took part in the violation, the reward itself may also be reduced depending on the degree of cooperation.

5. Protections exist, but they are not airtight

Several layers of legal protection apply to whistleblowers.

• Fair Trade Act Article 119 — bars KFTC commissioners and officials from disclosing secrets learned in the course of their duties.

• Fair Trade Act Article 44(4) — prohibits disclosure of the identity of a leniency applicant or informant and the content of the tip to anyone unrelated to the case.

• Whistleblower Protection Act Articles 12 and 15 — impose a duty of confidentiality as to the reporter's identity and ban disadvantageous measures taken because of the report.

• Whistleblower Protection Act Article 13 — allows a request for personal protection measures where there is a clear risk to life or body.

• Whistleblower Protection Act Article 14(4) and (6) — a report containing job-related confidential information is not treated as a breach of confidentiality duties, and contract clauses banning or restricting public interest reporting are void.

In practice, however, the smaller the circle of people involved in the violation, the easier it is for a company to infer who reported it. That is why the method, the timing and the scope of the evidence submitted should all be designed carefully in advance.

In summary

Public interest reporting is a powerful mechanism, and removing the cap has made it more attractive. But how much you receive depends on your evidence, and how safely you receive it depends on your preparation. For employees in particular, reporting involves not only the reward but their own criminal exposure and job security.

Cheongchul Law Firm has handled numerous KFTC proceedings and cartel and subcontracting disputes, supporting clients from reporting strategy through investigation response and related litigation. If you are considering a report, review the timing, method, scope of evidence and your own legal position before you decide.

This post is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Outcomes depend on the facts and evidence of each case and the applicable rules may change, so please consult a lawyer.