In South Korea, the prevention of and protection from domestic violence is covered by two main laws, both adopted in 1997 and amended on several occasions (namely in 2011 and 2014):

• Act on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Protection of Victims ("Prevention of Violence Act")
• Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Crimes of Domestic Violence ("Special Act for the Punishment of Domestic Violence")

In that context, the following should be noted:

• There is no stand-alone law addressing violence against women, and laws that cover acts of violence, including domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, are gender-neutral in the Republic of Korea.
• There is no law addressing honor crimes, and there is no information to suggest that honor crimes are an issue in the country.
• In 2020, the government introduced a Comprehensive Plan to Prevent Domestic Violence, laying out a five-year plan to address violence against women.

Other important regulations on this matter are:

• Framework Act on Prevention of Violence against Women, enacted on 24 December 2018, specifically addresses violence against women (the act mandates the government to formulate comprehensive plans to get rid of violence against women, as well as explicitly providing victims with a right to protection and to be free from secondary victimization, etc.)
• Act on Equal Employment for Both Sexes (amended by Act No. 7564 of 31 May 2005)
• Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse
• Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination Act
• Constitution of South Korea, 1948, as amended in 1987
• Criminal Act, 1975, last amended on 20 October 2020
• Civil Act, 1962 (Law No. 471), last amended on 20 October 2020
• amendments and decrees related to domestic violence as listed by the Korean government's official website: http://www.mogef.go.kr/eng/lw/eng_lw_f003.do

It should be noted that South Korea does not have a common law system and few cases reach the highest levels of the Korean legal system (the Supreme Court and constitutional court). However, some points of jurisprudence help clarify different points in the laws:

• An indecent act refers to an act that deviates from sexual moral norms causing a victim to feel shame or disgust, and violating the victim's sexual freedom. Whether such a crime is established should be carefully determined by factoring in: the victim's reciprocity, gender and age; relationship between the victim and perpetrator prior to the act; circumstances leading to the act; means and method used to commit the act; objective circumstances; and sexual moral norms at the time. See Supreme Court decision 2015Do6980 (2015).^[1]
• The Supreme Court (Supreme Court decision 2014Do17346) held that "judgment competency" means the ability to rationally discern between what is right and wrong, and "decision-making capacity" means the ability to control one's behavior. Whether such abilities are lacking can be determined by factoring in not only an expert's opinion on that issue but also objective evidence, such as testimonies of witnesses on the daily verbal expressions and behaviors of the child or juvenile, and circumstances that led to the charge, including the child or juvenile's speech and behavior. The court held that even if there may have been implied consent by the victim, such consent could not be viewed as an act of a child or juvenile with sufficient judgment competency who voluntarily exercised the right to sexual self-determination on an informed or educated basis.
• The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da19864) (2011) upheld a lower court's decision finding that the Seoul Young Men's Christian Associations (YMCA), a private organization, violated the Constitution when it excluded women from general membership. The Supreme Court found sexual discrimination, which excludes women from general membership qualification, to be against "social order exceeding tolerable limits in light of our community's sound common senses and legal sentiment." Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the YMCA violated the Constitution despite its private organization status.
• Unless it can be proven in the affirmative that the parties can restore the relationship and it would not be unbearable for the plaintiff to remain in such a relationship, the lower court should grant the plaintiff's claim for divorce (Supreme Court Decision 2005Meu1689) (2005).
• The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13414) (2006) dismissed an appeal by a governor of a province claiming that because he was found not to be violating the Election of Public Officials Act, he should also be found not guilty of sexual harassment charges under the former Prohibition of and Remedies for Gender Discrimination Act. The governor sexually harassed the defendant, a president of a vocation association, at meetings to discuss the upcoming general elections for governor. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's sexual behavior at such meetings constituted workplace sexual harassment, because their meetings had relevance to work, i.e., meeting to discuss elections for governor.
• In its decision (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da89712) (2009), the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the supervisor and employer liable. Under Article 756 of the Civil Act, an employer can be held liable for an employee's action if the act is "related to the employee's execution of the undertaking (for which he/she is employed)." Thus, the Supreme Court noted that when an employee injures another intentionally, even if the act is not related to the employee's undertaking of their job responsibilities, employer liability still attaches if the misconduct is "apparently and objectively related" to the employer's work. Additionally, if an employee commits an intentional act such as sexual misconduct, the court noted that employer liability attaches where the misconduct was objectively related to the execution of the employer's work.
• A recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court has, for the first time, introduced the concept of "gender sensitivity" in its findings, followed by similar rulings. (See Supreme Court Decision 2017Du74702, decided 12 April 2018) [Revocation of Decision of the Appeals Commission for Educators] The decision found that "sexual harassment cases ought to be resolved with gender sensitivity in striving for gender equality and better understanding of gender discrimination issues." The ruling is widely viewed as setting out the precedent and criteria for addressing sexual harassment cases from a gender equality perspective, a departure from "male-centered gender stereotype."
• Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has rejected the concept of marital rape, "alleging that sex between spouses cannot be rape" but, since 2006, there have been several successful convictions of cases of marital rape of migrant women by Korean spouses.^[2] According to the crime information handbook of the US embassy in Seoul, "spousal and acquaintance rape are crimes, but police and prosecutors have only rarely prosecuted these types of cases."^[3] In their 2013 report to the UN Human Rights Committee, Korean authorities stated that on 12 February 2009, the Supreme Court of Korea ruled that a crime of rape is acknowledged against a defendant who forced sex with his wife without her consent on the grounds that the marital relationship between the defendant and victim was legally maintained but already broken in practice.^[4]

Domestic violence cases are handled as special cases from the investigation stage to the court procedure.

Potential causes of action include actions in the fields of criminal, civil, administrative and employment law. The Special Act for the Punishment of Domestic Violence stipulates not only ordinary criminal punishment procedures but also protection order procedures for family protection cases, such as limitation on access to family members, probation, therapy and counseling, and custody entrustment.^[5]