Top court draws line for individual, corporate liability under marriage brokerage law

A case involving a USB drive full of the personal information of Vietnamese women has led to a Supreme Court ruling that clarifies how corporate and individual liability are assigned under the country's marriage brokerage law.

The court held that a corporation, not its CEO, should be considered the legal offender when a marriage brokerage firm distributes materials that can foster discrimination and that staff who carry out such acts must be judged under a separate legal provision rather than treated as co-conspirators with the company.

In 2020, a team manager at an international marriage brokerage agency received a USB drive from a Vietnamese partner company containing photographs of Vietnamese women along with personal information, including their height and weight.

The manager then handed the USB drive to the CEO of the brokerage agency, who instructed an employee to distribute the material to clients via the local messaging app KakaoTalk.

Article 12 of Korea's Marriage Brokers Business Management Act bans advertisements that are "false or exaggerated, or that may promote discrimination or prejudice based on nationality, race, sex, age, occupation or other characteristics."

Prosecutors charged the three —  the brokerage agency's CEO, the team manager and the employee instructed to distribute the material — citing this article. 

The trial court found all of the defendants guilty. The key issue was whether the company CEO qualified as a "marriage broker" under the law, as the relevant provision applies only to marriage brokers, and whether the two employees, who did not qualify as marriage brokers, could be held liable as co-principals under the criminal law.

The CEO argued that the term marriage broker referred to the corporate entity operating the business and that the they were “merely its representative.”

The trial court rejected that argument. It found that the CEO qualified as a marriage broker and concluded that the team manager and employee acted together with the CEO as co-principals in the offense.

The court imposed fines of 2 million won ($1,330) on the CEO and team manager, respectively, and 1 million won on the employee.

Partially overturned: Corporation is the marriage broker

The appellate court, however, reversed part of the lower court's ruling.

It held that when an international marriage brokerage business is registered in a corporation's name, the corporation itself qualifies as the marriage broker. As a result, the CEO was acquitted because they were not seen as a marriage broker under the law.

The court further ruled that because prosecutors had argued only that "the CEO is the marriage broker," they could not hold the CEO liable as an accomplice of the corporation, which was the actual marriage broker. 

However, the appellate court upheld the convictions of the team manager and employee, finding that they were co-principals with the corporate entity operating the brokerage business.

As a result, the corporation itself escaped prosecution because it had not been charged, while the CEO could no longer be punished under Article 12 and related provisions cited by prosecutors.

Supreme Court rules as misapplication of the law

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that the CEO did not qualify as a marriage broker. However, it found that the appellate court erred in treating the team manager and employee as co-principals with the corporation.

"The corporation is punished for failing to fulfill its duty of care and supervision to prevent violations," the court said. "It cannot be regarded as being in a conspiratorial accomplice relationship with the individual actors."

The court explained that the corporation is punished for failing to exercise proper management and oversight, while employees are punished for the act of distributing discriminatory advertisements themselves. Therefore, the two cannot be considered co-principals who committed the same crime together.

Instead, the Supreme Court held that the team manager and employee should have been examined under Article 27 of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act, which contains a dual punishment provision that allows not only the individual who directly committed a violation but also the corporation to which that person belongs to be penalized.

The Supreme Court held that under the marriage brokers law, the provision “extends beyond corporations and also applies to those who actually carry out the business.”

The Supreme Court therefore overturned the appellate court ruling that acquitted the head of an international marriage brokerage firm and imposed fines on two employees for violating the Marriage Brokerage Business Management Act, and remanded the case to the Uijeongbu District Court, according to legal sources Monday.

“The appellate court should have required prosecutors to correct any errors in the facts alleged in the indictment or in the legal provisions applied,” the Supreme Court said.

It added that the lower court erred in a manner that affected its judgment by "misapplying legal principles governing co-principal liability and dual punishment provisions."

Updated, June 1, 2026: Changed details about Supreme Court ruling to reflect decision more accurately. 

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.

BY JO SU-BIN [[email protected]]