Korea's Serious Accidents Law Marks Four Years: Progress and Challenges Ahead

*By Kim Hu-gon, Managing Partner at Kim & Chang (Former Senior Prosecutor)*

*The law has transformed corporate safety awareness, but ambiguity over the scope of "management responsibility" continues to spark debate. Legislative refinement should drive prevention, not just punishment.*

The Serious Accidents Punishment Act, which took effect in January 2022, marked a historic turning point that transformed the paradigm of Korean industrial workplaces. Four years into implementation, we must conduct a rigorous interim assessment. Is this law achieving its intended purpose of "disaster prevention and life protection," or has it remained merely a tool for post-incident retribution, focused on finding someone to punish when accidents occur? Now is the time to closely analyze changes on the ground and legal issues that have emerged over four years to ensure the law's effectiveness.

The most encouraging outcome is the shift in management awareness. In the past, occupational safety and health was dismissed as ancillary work for site managers. However, as the Act mandated that business executives (CEOs) establish safety and health management systems and monitor their implementation, many companies appointed Chief Safety Officers (CSOs) and established dedicated organizations, taking proactive measures. Safety has been elevated to a core value determining corporate sustainability (ESG).

Behind these positive changes, however, fierce legal conflicts stemming from ambiguous legislation continue to unfold. The debate over the scope of "management responsibility" remains particularly heated. The law defines a business executive as "a person with authority to represent and oversee the business, or a person who handles safety and health affairs in a comparable capacity," leaving room for interpretation. The word "or" has also caused confusion over whether appointing a CSO exempts the CEO from liability.

Over the past four years, numerous court rulings have accumulated through intense legal disputes. Among them, the Uijeongbu District Court's February ruling in the Sampyo Industries case provided a crucial milestone. The court acquitted the group chairman, clarifying that the business executive is, in principle, the "representative director (CEO)." To recognize someone other than the CEO as the business executive, the ruling stated, substantial and specific authority to oversee overall business operations must be proven, and it must be demonstrated that it was extremely difficult for the CEO to fulfill obligations under the Serious Accidents Act. Simply receiving reports or issuing instructions is insufficient. However, legal debates will continue until the Supreme Court renders a final decision.

Another factor fueling confusion on the ground is the dual investigation system. When accidents occur, both the Labor Office and police launch simultaneous investigations—a structure burdensome for both subjects and investigators alike. Differences in investigation speed between the two agencies result in considerable delays before cases are referred to prosecutors, impeding swift victim compensation and prolonging business uncertainty. With inadequate information-sharing systems between agencies, the reality of cases taking years to process undermines trust in judicial procedures.

The Serious Accidents Punishment Act is an essential investment our society must make for safer workplaces. However, if the law loses clarity and becomes fixated on abstract punishment, companies will focus on "cover-your-back paperwork" rather than substantive prevention. Future legislative amendments should clarify the scope of business executives, specify the limits of responsibility between executives and CSOs to enhance predictability, strengthen practical support measures for small and medium enterprises, and improve the dual investigation structure to increase speed and efficiency. Punishment is merely a means for prevention, not an end in itself.

Now we must move beyond "whom to punish" and answer the fundamental question: "How do we prevent recurrence?" We look forward to the government and National Assembly refining ambiguous legislation so that the Serious Accidents Punishment Act can truly function as a "bulwark for safety and life protection in industrial workplaces."