{"id":516,"date":"2026-02-20T23:25:55","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T23:25:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?p=516"},"modified":"2026-02-25T04:54:17","modified_gmt":"2026-02-25T04:54:17","slug":"technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/","title":{"rendered":"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2]"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!--\n============================================================\nAtlas Legal Blog HTML (English Version)\nTopic: What Can You Do When a Client Steals Your Technology? Technology Data Misappropriation Under South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2]\nAuthor: Taejin Kim, Managing Attorney\nDate: 2026-02-20\n============================================================\n\n[Yoast SEO Settings]\nSEO Title: What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2] | Atlas Legal\nFocus Keyphrase: technology data misappropriation South Korea Win-Win Cooperation Act\nMeta Description: If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.\nURL Slug: \/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/\nTags: technology misappropriation South Korea, Win-Win Cooperation Act, technology theft Korea, subcontractor rights South Korea, quintuple damages Korea\n============================================================\n--><\/p>\n<p><!-- Article Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"Article\",\n    \"headline\": \"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2]\",\n    \"description\": \"If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.\",\n    \"author\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Person\",\n        \"name\": \"Taejin Kim\",\n        \"jobTitle\": \"Attorney at Law\",\n        \"worksFor\": {\n            \"@type\": \"LegalService\",\n            \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\",\n            \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\",\n            \"address\": {\n                \"@type\": \"PostalAddress\",\n                \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\",\n                \"addressRegion\": \"Songdo\"\n            }\n        }\n    },\n    \"publisher\": {\n        \"@type\": \"Organization\",\n        \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\",\n        \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\"\n    },\n    \"datePublished\": \"2026-02-20\",\n    \"dateModified\": \"2026-02-20\",\n    \"mainEntityOfPage\": {\n        \"@type\": \"WebPage\"\n    }\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- FAQ Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\n    \"mainEntity\": [\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What are the legal requirements for a technology data misappropriation claim under South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Article 25(2) of South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act prohibits a principal enterprise from misappropriating technology data obtained from a subcontractor \u2014 specifically data that is managed as confidential \u2014 by using it for itself or a third party, or by providing it to a third party. Three conditions must be met: (1) the technology data must have been obtained through a principal-subcontractor transaction; (2) the data must have been managed as confidential at the time of transfer; and (3) the principal enterprise must have used the data without authorization or disclosed it to a third party. Whether data was 'managed as confidential' is assessed based on measures such as non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality markings, and access restrictions.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Why does technology misappropriation under South Korean law carry higher damages than non-payment of the supply price?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Article 40-2(2)(ii) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides for damages up to five times the actual loss for technology data misappropriation under Article 25(2). Most other violations \u2014 including unlawful price reduction \u2014 are subject to a treble damages ceiling. The higher multiplier reflects the irreversibility of the harm: a delayed payment can be recovered after the fact, but once proprietary technology is used or disclosed by a principal enterprise, the subcontractor's core competitive advantage may be permanently destroyed and market position cannot be restored.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What happens if the principal enterprise in South Korea refuses to disclose how it used the subcontractor's technology?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Article 40-4(1) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act requires a principal enterprise that disputes a subcontractor's allegations of technology misappropriation to affirmatively present the specific details, methods, and form of its own conduct. If the principal enterprise fails to do so without legitimate justification, the court may treat the subcontractor's characterization of the misappropriation \u2014 including its specific content, method, and form \u2014 as true (Article 40-4(5)). A mere denial is insufficient; the principal enterprise must affirmatively explain its own independent development process.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"How is the amount of damages calculated in a technology misappropriation case in South Korea?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Article 40-3 of the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides three calculation methods. First, where the principal enterprise sells products using the misappropriated technology, the damages equal the number of units sold multiplied by the subcontractor's per-unit profit margin. Second, a reasonable royalty equivalent \u2014 the amount that would have been charged for authorized use of the technology \u2014 may be applied. Third, the actual profit gained by the principal enterprise through the violation may be used as the basis. Where the nature of the harm makes precise quantification extremely difficult, the court may determine a reasonable damages figure based on the overall record (Article 40-3(2)).\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"Is a non-disclosure agreement required when providing technology data to a principal enterprise in South Korea?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Article 21-2(1) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act requires a principal enterprise to execute a non-disclosure agreement when requesting technology data from a subcontractor. Article 11(1)(ii) of the Enforcement Rules further requires that this agreement be retained for seven years from the end of the transaction \u2014 more than twice the three-year retention period for supply price documents. The non-disclosure agreement serves as critical evidence that the data was 'managed as confidential,' which is a prerequisite for a misappropriation claim. Subcontractors should ensure that the agreement specifically identifies the protected data, the obligations of confidentiality, and the consequences of breach.\"\n            }\n        },\n        {\n            \"@type\": \"Question\",\n            \"name\": \"What happens if the principal enterprise retaliates after a subcontractor reports technology misappropriation in South Korea?\",\n            \"acceptedAnswer\": {\n                \"@type\": \"Answer\",\n                \"text\": \"Article 25(1)(xiv)(a)(2) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act expressly prohibits retaliation \u2014 such as reducing order volumes or suspending the business relationship \u2014 against a subcontractor that has reported technology data misappropriation under Article 25(2). Such retaliation is subject to quintuple damages under Article 40-2(2)(ii), the same multiplier as the underlying misappropriation itself. This is a higher ceiling than the treble damages that apply to retaliation in connection with other types of violations, reflecting the legislature's recognition that technology misappropriation complaints warrant the strongest available protection.\"\n            }\n        }\n    ]\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- LocalBusiness Schema --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\n{\n    \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\n    \"@type\": \"LocalBusiness\",\n    \"name\": \"Atlas Legal\",\n    \"image\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/logo.png\",\n    \"url\": \"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\",\n    \"telephone\": \"+82-32-864-8300\",\n    \"address\": {\n        \"@type\": \"PostalAddress\",\n        \"streetAddress\": \"323 Incheon Tower-daero, B-dong 2901, Songdo-dong, Sentro\",\n        \"addressLocality\": \"Incheon\",\n        \"addressRegion\": \"Yeonsu-gu, Incheon\",\n        \"addressCountry\": \"KR\"\n    },\n    \"priceRange\": \"$$\",\n    \"openingHoursSpecification\": {\n        \"@type\": \"OpeningHoursSpecification\",\n        \"dayOfWeek\": [\"Monday\",\"Tuesday\",\"Wednesday\",\"Thursday\",\"Friday\"],\n        \"opens\": \"09:00\",\n        \"closes\": \"18:00\"\n    }\n}\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><!-- CSS (Do not modify) --><\/p>\n<style>\n    body {\n        font-family: Georgia, serif;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        max-width: 1000px;\n        margin: 0 auto;\n        padding: 20px;\n        background-color: #f9f9f9;\n    }\n    .content-container {\n        background-color: white;\n        padding: 20px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    h2 {\n        font-size: 22px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    h3 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #34495e;\n        margin-top: 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    p, li {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n    }\n    ul, ol {\n        padding-left: 25px;\n        margin: 10px 0;\n    }\n    li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    table {\n        width: 100%;\n        border-collapse: collapse;\n        margin: 15px 0;\n    }\n    th, td {\n        border: 1px solid #ddd;\n        padding: 10px;\n        text-align: left;\n        font-size: 16px;\n    }\n    th {\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    .toc {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .toc h2 {\n        font-size: 20px;\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n    }\n    .toc ul {\n        list-style-type: none;\n        padding-left: 0;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .toc ul li {\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .toc a {\n        text-decoration: none !important;\n        color: #3498db;\n        border-bottom: none !important;\n    }\n    .toc a:hover {\n        text-decoration: underline;\n    }\n    .story-hook {\n        padding: 15px 20px;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-hook p {\n        font-style: italic;\n        color: #555;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        margin: 0;\n    }\n    .direct-answer {\n        padding: 15px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n        font-weight: 500;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-detail {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 20px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .story-detail h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        font-size: 19px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n    }\n    .story-detail p {\n        line-height: 1.8;\n        color: #444;\n    }\n    .disclaimer {\n        font-size: 15px;\n        color: #666;\n        font-style: italic;\n        margin-bottom: 15px;\n    }\n    .faq-section {\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin: 30px 0;\n        background-color: #f5f5f5;\n    }\n    .faq-item {\n        margin-bottom: 20px;\n    }\n    .faq-question {\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        margin-bottom: 8px;\n        font-size: 18px;\n    }\n    .faq-answer {\n        color: #555;\n        font-size: 17px;\n        line-height: 1.6;\n    }\n    .author-box {\n        background-color: #f8f9fa;\n        padding: 20px;\n        border-radius: 0;\n        margin-top: 30px;\n        border-left: 2px solid #722f37;\n    }\n    .author-box h3 {\n        margin-top: 0;\n        margin-bottom: 10px;\n        font-size: 20px;\n        color: #2c3e50;\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-name {\n        font-size: 18px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        color: #333;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n    }\n    .author-box .author-info {\n        font-size: 16px;\n        color: #555;\n        margin-bottom: 5px;\n        line-height: 1.4;\n    }\n    .author-box a {\n        display: inline-block;\n        background-color: #722f37;\n        color: white;\n        padding: 12px 24px;\n        text-decoration: none;\n        border-radius: 6px;\n        font-size: 16px;\n        font-weight: bold;\n        border: 2px solid #722f37;\n        cursor: pointer;\n        box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(114, 47, 55, 0.3);\n        margin-top: 5px;\n    }\n    br {\n        display: none;\n    }\n    strong {\n        font-weight: bold;\n    }\n    @media (max-width: 768px) {\n        body { padding: 10px; }\n        .content-container { padding: 15px; }\n        h2 { font-size: 18px; }\n        h3 { font-size: 17px; }\n        p, li { font-size: 16px; }\n        th, td { font-size: 14px; padding: 8px; }\n    }\n    .site-container, .content-area, .entry-content { padding: 0; margin: 0; }\n    .entry-content > *:first-child { margin-top: 0 !important; }\n    .entry-content { margin-top: 0px !important; }\n    .kb-row-container, .kb-column-container { margin: 0; padding: 0; }\n<\/style>\n<p><!-- Body Content --><\/p>\n<div class=\"content-container\">\n<p>    <!-- Table of Contents --><\/p>\n<div class=\"toc\">\n<h2>Table of Contents<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#section1\">1. How Does South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act Regulate Technology Data Misappropriation?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section2\">2. Why Does Technology Misappropriation Carry Quintuple Damages Under South Korean Law?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section3\">3. How Is the Amount of Damages Calculated?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section4\">4. What If the Principal Enterprise Simply Denies Using the Technology?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section5\">5. How Should a Subcontractor Secure Evidence in a Technology Dispute?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#section6\">6. FAQ<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Story Hook (65 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"story-hook\">\n<p>A South Korean mid-sized manufacturer had spent three years jointly developing and supplying proprietary component technology to a large conglomerate affiliate. Then the subcontractor discovered that the client had begun producing an identical component through a competing manufacturer. A non-disclosure agreement had been signed when the technical drawings were handed over \u2014 but the principal enterprise insisted the design was entirely its own independent work. Could South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act provide a remedy?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Direct Answer (62 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"direct-answer\">\n        <strong>Direct Answer:<\/strong> Yes. Where a principal enterprise uses confidential technology data obtained from a subcontractor for its own benefit or that of a third party, or discloses that data to a third party, the conduct constitutes a prohibited act under Article 25(2) of the Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises (the &#8220;Win-Win Cooperation Act&#8221;). The subcontractor may claim damages of up to five times the actual loss under Article 40-2(2)(ii), and the Act provides a burden-shifting framework that significantly reduces the subcontractor&#8217;s evidentiary burden.\n    <\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Story Development (128 words) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"story-detail\">\n<h3>When the Evidence Is Locked Inside the Other Party&#8217;s Building<\/h3>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\">* The scenario above is hypothetical and presented for illustrative purposes only.<\/p>\n<p>In cases like this, the central difficulty is not establishing that a violation occurred \u2014 it is proving it. The non-disclosure agreement is in place. The list of technical documents provided to the principal enterprise is documented. But whether the principal enterprise actually used those documents, or developed the competing design independently, is information that sits entirely within the principal enterprise&#8217;s own records: its R&#038;D logs, engineering revision histories, and internal design files. South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act directly addresses this structural asymmetry. It places an affirmative obligation on the principal enterprise to explain its own conduct \u2014 and if it cannot, the law allows the court to accept the subcontractor&#8217;s account as true.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section1\">1. How Does South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act Regulate Technology Data Misappropriation?<\/h2>\n<p>Article 25(2) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act establishes a prohibition on technology data misappropriation that operates separately from the supply price provisions of Article 25(1). Understanding the structure of this provision is the starting point for any claim.<\/p>\n<h3>The Two Prohibited Forms of Misappropriation Under Article 25(2)<\/h3>\n<p>Article 25(2) provides: &#8220;A principal enterprise shall not engage in any of the following acts of misappropriation with respect to technology data obtained from a subcontractor \u2014 <strong>limited to technology data managed as confidential<\/strong> \u2014 in an unjustifiable manner.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 25(2)<\/p>\n<table>\n<tr>\n<th>Subparagraph<\/th>\n<th>Prohibited Conduct<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Article 25(2)(i)<\/td>\n<td>Using the technology data for the benefit of the principal enterprise itself or a third party<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Article 25(2)(ii)<\/td>\n<td>Providing the technology data to a third party<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 25(2)(i) and (ii)<\/p>\n<h3>The Meaning of &#8220;Technology Data Managed as Confidential&#8221;<\/h3>\n<p>Article 25(2) does not protect all technology data that a principal enterprise obtains from a subcontractor \u2014 only data that is <strong>managed as confidential<\/strong> at the time of transfer. This concept is likely to be assessed in a manner analogous to the &#8220;confidentiality management&#8221; requirement under the Act on the Prevention of Unfair Competition and Protection of Trade Secrets. In practice, subcontractors strengthen their position by marking technical documents as confidential, restricting access to identified personnel, and executing non-disclosure agreements before transferring any proprietary data.<\/p>\n<h3>The Scope of &#8220;Technology Data&#8221;<\/h3>\n<p>Article 2(ix) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act defines technology data as methods of manufacturing or producing goods, and other data that is useful for business activities and has independent economic value, as further specified by Presidential Decree. Manufacturing drawings, process design documents, raw material composition ratios, quality control standards, and mold design data are among the categories that may qualify. Whether any specific material constitutes &#8220;technology data managed as confidential&#8221; is frequently the central contested issue in misappropriation disputes.<\/p>\n<h3>The Non-Disclosure Agreement Requirement and Document Retention<\/h3>\n<p>Article 21-2(1) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act requires a principal enterprise to execute a non-disclosure agreement when requesting technology data from a subcontractor. Under Article 11(1)(ii) of the Enforcement Rules, this agreement must be retained for <strong>seven years<\/strong> from the end of the transaction \u2014 more than twice the three-year retention period applicable to supply price documents. The extended retention period reflects the long time horizons over which technology disputes can arise. For subcontractors, the non-disclosure agreement is the single most important document in establishing that the transferred data was managed as confidential.<\/p>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 21-2(1); Enforcement Rules, Article 11(1)(ii) and (2)<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section2\">2. Why Does Technology Misappropriation Carry Quintuple Damages Under South Korean Law?<\/h2>\n<p>Under the Win-Win Cooperation Act, the standard ceiling for punitive damages is three times the actual loss. Technology data misappropriation under Article 25(2) is one of two categories that attract a higher multiplier of five times the actual loss. This difference reflects a deliberate legislative judgment about the severity of this particular form of harm.<\/p>\n<h3>The Punitive Damages Framework: A Comparative Overview<\/h3>\n<table>\n<tr>\n<th>Violation<\/th>\n<th>Statutory Basis<\/th>\n<th>Maximum Damages<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Unlawful price reduction, refusal to accept goods, order reduction, retaliation for non-technology complaints<\/td>\n<td>Article 40-2(2)(i)<\/td>\n<td>Up to 3x actual loss<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Technology data misappropriation; retaliation for reporting technology misappropriation<\/td>\n<td>Article 40-2(2)(ii)<\/td>\n<td>Up to 5x actual loss<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 40-2(2)<\/p>\n<p>The rationale for the higher multiplier is the irreversibility of technology-related harm. A delayed supply payment can be recovered once it is eventually made. But once proprietary technology has been used or disclosed by a principal enterprise, the subcontractor&#8217;s core competitive advantage may be permanently compromised. The affected company cannot un-share its technology, cannot recapture the market position it has lost, and may find itself competing in its own market against a product built on its own innovations. The five-times ceiling is the legislature&#8217;s response to the structural severity of this harm.<\/p>\n<h3>Factors Courts Consider When Setting Punitive Damages<\/h3>\n<p>Article 40-2(3) requires courts to weigh the following factors when determining the punitive damages award: the degree of intent or awareness of the risk of harm; the scope of losses suffered by the subcontractor and others; the economic benefit gained by the principal enterprise through the violation; compliance with improvement orders, corrective recommendations, or corrective orders; any criminal sanctions imposed; the duration and frequency of the violation; the principal enterprise&#8217;s financial position; and the extent of its efforts to remedy the harm. Systematic or prolonged misappropriation \u2014 for example, where a principal enterprise built an entire product line on misappropriated technology \u2014 is likely to attract damages toward the upper end of the permitted range.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section3\">3. How Is the Amount of Damages Calculated?<\/h2>\n<p>Quantifying loss in a technology misappropriation case is structurally more difficult than in a payment dispute. The extent to which the technology was used, for how long, and across what volume of production are facts that reside almost entirely within the principal enterprise&#8217;s internal records. Article 40-3 of the Win-Win Cooperation Act addresses this by providing three distinct calculation methodologies.<\/p>\n<h3>The Three Calculation Methods Under Article 40-3<\/h3>\n<table>\n<tr>\n<th>Method<\/th>\n<th>Calculation Basis<\/th>\n<th>Applicable Circumstances<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Article 40-3(1)(i)(a)<\/td>\n<td>Units sold by the principal enterprise using the misappropriated technology \u00d7 the subcontractor&#8217;s per-unit profit margin<\/td>\n<td>Where the principal enterprise manufactured and sold products using the misappropriated technology<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Article 40-3(1)(i)(b)<\/td>\n<td>Reasonable royalty equivalent for units not covered by method (a)<\/td>\n<td>Applied as a supplement where method (a) does not cover all infringing units<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Article 40-3(1)(ii)<\/td>\n<td>Reasonable royalty equivalent for use of the technology data<\/td>\n<td>General method for cases not covered by (i)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Article 40-3(1)(iii)<\/td>\n<td>Actual profit gained by the principal enterprise through the violation<\/td>\n<td>Where the principal enterprise&#8217;s profit from the violation can be clearly established<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 40-3(1)<\/p>\n<h3>Court-Determined Damages Where Precise Quantification Is Extremely Difficult<\/h3>\n<p>Article 40-3(2) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides that where the existence of harm is established but its precise quantification is <strong>extremely difficult given the nature of the facts involved<\/strong>, the court may determine a reasonable damages figure based on the overall record, including all evidence submitted and the course of the proceedings. This provision directly acknowledges the structural difficulty of quantifying technology-related losses and gives courts meaningful discretion to ensure that the practical impossibility of precise measurement does not defeat a valid claim.<\/p>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 40-3(2)<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section4\">4. What If the Principal Enterprise Simply Denies Using the Technology?<\/h2>\n<p>The most common defense in technology misappropriation cases is a claim of independent development: the principal enterprise asserts that it designed or developed the competing product entirely on its own, without reference to the subcontractor&#8217;s technology data. South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act establishes a framework that significantly limits the effectiveness of this defense.<\/p>\n<h3>The Principal Enterprise&#8217;s Obligation to Present Its Own Conduct (Article 40-4)<\/h3>\n<p>Article 40-4(1) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides that where a principal enterprise disputes a subcontractor&#8217;s allegations of technology data misappropriation in litigation, it must <strong>affirmatively present the specific content, method, and form of its own conduct<\/strong>, unless there is a substantial reason why it cannot do so.<\/p>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 40-4(1)<\/p>\n<p>The practical significance of this provision is substantial. Under ordinary civil procedure, the burden of proving every element of a claim rests with the claimant \u2014 the subcontractor. Article 40-4 disrupts this allocation specifically in the context of technology misappropriation. A principal enterprise that wishes to deny misappropriation cannot simply assert that denial; it must explain, concretely and specifically, what its own independent development process actually consisted of. A general denial, without substantive detail, does not discharge this obligation.<\/p>\n<h3>The Consequence of Failing to Present Conduct: Deemed Admission<\/h3>\n<p>Article 40-4(5) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides that if a principal enterprise fails without legitimate justification to present the specific content, method, and form of its own conduct, the court <strong>may treat the subcontractor&#8217;s characterization of the misappropriation \u2014 including its specific content, method, and form \u2014 as true<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 40-4(5)<\/p>\n<p>This is a powerful mechanism. A principal enterprise that is unable or unwilling to demonstrate the details of its claimed independent development faces the prospect of having the subcontractor&#8217;s account accepted as factually established by the court.<\/p>\n<h3>The Court&#8217;s Document Production Order (Article 40-5)<\/h3>\n<p>Article 40-5(1) empowers a court, on application by a party, to order the opposing party to produce documents necessary to prove the existence of a violation or to calculate the amount of loss. In technology misappropriation cases, this may extend to the principal enterprise&#8217;s internal R&#038;D records, engineering revision histories, design drawings, and production process documentation.<\/p>\n<p>Critically, Article 40-5(3) provides that where documents are essential to proving the violation or calculating damages, the fact that the documents constitute <strong>trade secrets does not, by itself, constitute legitimate grounds for refusing production<\/strong>. In such cases, the court may specify the permitted scope of disclosure and limit the persons entitled to review the documents, balancing confidentiality protection against the need for effective adjudication.<\/p>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Articles 40-5(1) and (3)<\/p>\n<p>If a principal enterprise refuses to comply with a production order without legitimate justification, the court may treat the subcontractor&#8217;s assertions regarding those documents as true (Article 40-5(4)).<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section5\">5. How Should a Subcontractor Secure Evidence in a Technology Dispute?<\/h2>\n<p>Evidence management in technology misappropriation cases has two distinct phases: proactive measures taken before any dispute arises, and reactive steps taken once misappropriation is suspected. The pre-dispute phase is often more consequential.<\/p>\n<h3>Pre-Dispute Measures: Before Technology Data Is Transferred<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Document every item of technology data being provided and obtain a written acknowledgment of receipt from the principal enterprise<\/li>\n<li>Mark all technical documents clearly as confidential (&#8220;CONFIDENTIAL&#8221; or equivalent designation in both English and Korean)<\/li>\n<li>Execute a non-disclosure agreement identifying the specific data being protected, the obligations of the receiving party, and the consequences of breach \u2014 and retain this agreement for at least seven years (Enforcement Rules, Article 11(1)(ii))<\/li>\n<li>Restrict access to transferred technology data to named individuals at the principal enterprise and implement internal procedures governing external use and reproduction<\/li>\n<li>Document the purpose and scope of each technology transfer in writing, including the specific project or component for which the data is being provided<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Post-Discovery Steps: When Misappropriation Is Suspected<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Gather publicly available materials showing that the principal enterprise or a third party is using similar or identical technology: product catalogs, patent applications, exhibition materials, and product photographs<\/li>\n<li>Preserve any communications in which employees of the principal enterprise reference the subcontractor&#8217;s technology data or describe their development process<\/li>\n<li>Secure the original files of all technology data provided, with creation date metadata intact<\/li>\n<li>Identify specific elements of the principal enterprise&#8217;s or third party&#8217;s products that correspond to features of the subcontractor&#8217;s proprietary technology data<\/li>\n<li>Obtain written statements from internal personnel who participated in the development and transfer of the technology<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>The Technology Data Escrow System<\/h3>\n<p>Article 25(1)(xiii) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act prohibits a principal enterprise from disadvantaging a subcontractor because the subcontractor has requested that technology data be held in escrow by a designated third-party custodian. Technology escrow provides an independent record of the content and timing of proprietary data \u2014 evidence that can be decisive in a dispute. Where misappropriation is a genuine risk, subcontractors should consider lodging key technical documents with an authorized escrow institution. A principal enterprise cannot lawfully retaliate against a subcontractor for making this request.<\/p>\n<p>Source: Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises, Article 25(1)(xiii)<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- FAQ Section --><br \/>\n    <\/p>\n<h2 id=\"section6\">6. FAQ<\/h2>\n<div class=\"faq-section\">\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q1. What are the legal requirements for a technology data misappropriation claim under South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Article 25(2) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act prohibits a principal enterprise from using confidential technology data obtained from a subcontractor for its own or a third party&#8217;s benefit, or from providing that data to a third party. Three conditions apply: the data must have been obtained through a principal-subcontractor transaction; it must have been managed as confidential at the time of transfer; and the principal enterprise must have used or disclosed it without authorization. Whether data was &#8220;managed as confidential&#8221; is assessed based on non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality markings, and access restrictions.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q2. Why does technology misappropriation under South Korean law carry higher damages than non-payment of the supply price?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Article 40-2(2)(ii) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides for damages up to five times the actual loss for technology data misappropriation, compared to a treble damages ceiling for most other violations. The higher multiplier reflects the irreversibility of the harm: a delayed payment can be recovered once made, but once proprietary technology has been used or disclosed, the subcontractor&#8217;s competitive position may be permanently and irrecoverably damaged.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q3. What happens if the principal enterprise in South Korea refuses to disclose how it used the subcontractor&#8217;s technology?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Article 40-4(1) requires a principal enterprise disputing misappropriation allegations to affirmatively present the specific details, methods, and form of its own conduct. If it fails to do so without legitimate justification, the court may treat the subcontractor&#8217;s characterization of the misappropriation as true under Article 40-4(5). A general denial is insufficient \u2014 the principal enterprise must substantively explain its own independent development process or risk having the subcontractor&#8217;s version accepted by the court.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q4. How is the amount of damages calculated in a technology misappropriation case in South Korea?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Article 40-3 provides three methods: (1) units sold by the principal enterprise using the misappropriated technology, multiplied by the subcontractor&#8217;s per-unit profit margin; (2) a reasonable royalty equivalent for authorized use of the technology; and (3) the actual profit gained by the principal enterprise through the violation. Where precise quantification is extremely difficult given the nature of the evidence, the court may determine a reasonable figure based on the overall record under Article 40-3(2).<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q5. Is a non-disclosure agreement required when providing technology data to a principal enterprise in South Korea?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Article 21-2(1) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act requires the principal enterprise to execute a non-disclosure agreement when requesting technology data. The Enforcement Rules require retention for seven years from the end of the transaction (Article 11(1)(ii)) \u2014 more than twice the three-year period for supply price documents. The agreement serves as critical evidence that the data was &#8220;managed as confidential,&#8221; which is a prerequisite for a misappropriation claim. It should specifically identify the protected data, the scope of confidentiality obligations, and the consequences of breach.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<div class=\"faq-question\">Q6. What happens if the principal enterprise retaliates after a subcontractor reports technology misappropriation in South Korea?<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-answer\">A. Article 25(1)(xiv)(a)(2) prohibits retaliation \u2014 including order reductions or transaction suspension \u2014 against a subcontractor that has reported technology data misappropriation under Article 25(2). Such retaliation carries quintuple damages under Article 40-2(2)(ii), the same ceiling as the underlying misappropriation itself. This is higher than the treble damages applicable to retaliation in connection with other types of violations, reflecting the legislature&#8217;s judgment that technology misappropriation complaints require the strongest available statutory protection.<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>    <!-- Closing Paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>Technology data misappropriation disputes in South Korea tend to be more complex and protracted than supply price disputes. The evidentiary framework established by Articles 40-3, 40-4, and 40-5 of the Win-Win Cooperation Act \u2014 covering damages calculation, the conduct presentation obligation, and document production orders \u2014 gives subcontractors meaningful tools that are not available in ordinary civil litigation. At the same time, the effectiveness of these tools depends heavily on how well the subcontractor has managed its technology data from the outset. The strength of the non-disclosure agreement, the quality of the documentation trail, and the precision with which the transferred data is identified will determine whether these statutory mechanisms can be deployed effectively.<\/p>\n<p>The final installment in this series addresses <strong>the obligations and risks on the subcontractor&#8217;s side<\/strong> \u2014 the prohibited acts that Article 25(4) of the Win-Win Cooperation Act imposes on subcontractors themselves, and the compliance framework that subcontractors should maintain while asserting their own rights against principal enterprises.<\/p>\n<p class=\"disclaimer\">* The legal information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only. All statutory references are to the Act on the Promotion of Mutually Beneficial Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises and its Enforcement Rules as currently in force. Legal outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, and this article does not constitute legal advice. Parties involved in actual disputes should consult a qualified attorney.<\/p>\n<p>    <!-- Author Box --><\/p>\n<div class=\"author-box\">\n<h3>About the Author<\/h3>\n<div class=\"author-name\">Taejin Kim | Managing Attorney<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Corporate Advisory, Commercial Disputes &#038; Corporate Criminal Defense<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">Former Prosecutor | 33rd Class, Judicial Research and Training Institute<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-info\">LL.B. &#038; LL.M. in Criminal Law, Korea University; LL.M., University of California, Davis<\/div>\n<p>        <a href=\"https:\/\/        \n\n<div class=\"author-info\">Atlas Legal | Incheon Songdo, South Korea<\/div>\n<p>        atlaw.kr&#8221; target=&#8221;_blank&#8221; rel=&#8221;noopener noreferrer&#8221;>Visit Atlas Legal Website<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Table of Contents 1. How Does South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act Regulate Technology Data Misappropriation? 2. Why Does Technology Misappropriation Carry Quintuple Damages Under South Korean Law? 3. How Is the Amount of Damages Calculated? 4. What If the Principal Enterprise Simply Denies Using the Technology? 5. How Should a Subcontractor Secure Evidence in a&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kadence_starter_templates_imported_post":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[223,15],"tags":[416,412,414,415,411],"class_list":["post-516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corporate-disputes","category-corporate","tag-quintuple-damages-korea","tag-subcontractor-rights-south-korea","tag-technology-misappropriation-south-korea","tag-technology-theft-korea","tag-win-win-cooperation-act"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea&#039;s Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2] | Atlas Legal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ko_KR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea&#039;s Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2] | Atlas Legal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Atlas Legal Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-20T23:25:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-02-25T04:54:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18\ubd84\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\"},\"headline\":\"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2]\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-20T23:25:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-25T04:54:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3224,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"quintuple damages Korea\",\"subcontractor rights South Korea\",\"technology misappropriation South Korea\",\"technology theft Korea\",\"Win-Win Cooperation Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Corporate Disputes\",\"Corporate\\\/International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2] | Atlas Legal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-20T23:25:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-02-25T04:54:17+00:00\",\"description\":\"If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\ud648\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"width\":540,\"height\":485,\"caption\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\",\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ko-KR\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/author\\\/prinz001\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2] | Atlas Legal","description":"If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/","og_locale":"ko_KR","og_type":"article","og_title":"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2] | Atlas Legal","og_description":"If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.","og_url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/","og_site_name":"Atlas Legal Blog","article_published_time":"2026-02-20T23:25:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-02-25T04:54:17+00:00","author":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\uae00\uc4f4\uc774":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","\uc608\uc0c1 \ub418\ub294 \ud310\ub3c5 \uc2dc\uac04":"18\ubd84"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/"},"author":{"name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55"},"headline":"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2]","datePublished":"2026-02-20T23:25:55+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-25T04:54:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/"},"wordCount":3224,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["quintuple damages Korea","subcontractor rights South Korea","technology misappropriation South Korea","technology theft Korea","Win-Win Cooperation Act"],"articleSection":["Corporate Disputes","Corporate\/International"],"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/","name":"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea's Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2] | Atlas Legal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-02-20T23:25:55+00:00","dateModified":"2026-02-25T04:54:17+00:00","description":"If a principal enterprise in South Korea uses your proprietary technology without authorization or shares it with a third party, the Win-Win Cooperation Act provides quintuple damages and a unique burden-shifting framework. Explained by a Korean attorney.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ko-KR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/technology-data-misappropriation-south-korea-win-win-cooperation-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\ud648","item":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"What Can You Do When a Client Uses Your Technology Without Permission? South Korea&#8217;s Win-Win Cooperation Act [Series 2]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ko-KR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","width":540,"height":485,"caption":"Atlas Legal English Blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55","name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ko-KR","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d4c25916239244225f5f853b2ddf50fdcb7ea24d63347445261fe71c707cc558?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr"],"url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/author\/prinz001\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=516"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":537,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/516\/revisions\/537"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}