My former Korean employer says they'll sue me for defamation over a review I left — is the threat real, and how do I respond without making it worse?

The threat is real in the sense that Korean law gives them both a civil and a criminal route; it is not real in the sense that either route is likely to succeed against a specific, truthful review about employment conditions that named no one. Your friends are each half right: truth is not a complete defense in Korea, but truthful statements in the public interest are, and a review warning other teachers about late pay is close to the center of that exception. The letter is a demand, not a filing, and its price — 5 million won and an apology — is the number they hope you will pay to avoid learning that. Respond, in writing, through counsel, and do not pay.

What they could do

Criminal: a complaint for defamation under Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization (정보통신망법, jeongbo tongsinmang-beop), which covers online statements of fact that damage reputation — true statements included, with a heavier range for false ones. The defense is Article 310 of the Criminal Act: a true statement made solely for the public interest is not punishable. Korean courts have applied that to employee reviews of workplace conditions, particularly where the statements are factual, specific and addressed to people deciding whether to work there. A review that says "salary was paid late in March and May" is defended; one that says "the director is a psychopath" is insult (모욕, moyok) and is not. Read your review with that distinction in mind before anyone else does.

A hagwon is a business; defamation of a business as such is narrower than of a person, and a review that named no individual is harder to frame as personal defamation of the director.

Civil: a damages claim under the Civil Act for injury to reputation. The same public-interest and truth principles apply, and Korean courts require proof of actual harm; damages for a truthful, unnamed review are unlikely and, where awarded, small. A 5 million won demand is a negotiating figure.

Likelihood: employers send these letters because some teachers pay. Those who file a criminal complaint face a police review of the truth of the statements — the payslips — and a prosecutor who sees Article 310; those who sue face a court that asks the same questions and a defendant who can counterclaim for the labor violations the review described. Many letters are never followed by anything.

Removing the review

Removal neither protects nor incriminates. It does not undo a statement already published, so it does not eliminate exposure; and it is not treated as an admission — courts see removal in response to a demand as ordinary caution. Whether to remove is tactical: a review that is entirely factual and defensible can stay; one with a sentence you would not want to defend can be edited, or removed, without conceding anything. Do not apologize in writing; an apology is an admission and is what the letter is actually trying to obtain.

Responding to the letter

Do not ignore it, and do not reply yourself. A lawyer's letter answered by silence invites the filing; answered by an emotional email, it supplies exhibits. The response, from counsel, is short: the review states facts about your employment, which are true and documented; the statements were made in the public interest to inform prospective employees; no individual was named; the demand is refused; and the writer should be aware that any proceeding will put the employer's payroll compliance before the police or the court. That last sentence, in a letter from counsel, tends to end the correspondence. Attach nothing yet; the payslips are for the police or the court, not for their lawyer.

Your situation as a foreign national

A demand letter has no effect on your visa. A criminal complaint, if filed, is an investigation and not a conviction; a conviction or fine, if it ever came to that, is a fact the Immigration Office may weigh, and defamation fines sit at the mild end. Immigration outcomes are the Immigration Office's. Your new sponsor is not contacted by anyone at this stage, and there is no obligation to tell them about a letter. MEGA X handles the response and any proceeding; where status becomes relevant, we coordinate with an immigration specialist as part of the matter.

What to do now, and what not to do

Assemble the payslips, contract and any messages that document each statement in the review. Save the review as posted. Do not edit it before counsel has read it against the payslips. Do not discuss the letter with current or former colleagues at the old school. Have counsel send the response before the letter's deadline, and consider whether the late-pay history supports a labor office complaint of your own — a filed complaint changes the employer's calculation about opening a proceeding that examines its payroll.

Practical insight

Employer defamation letters to former foreign staff work on exactly the belief your first friend expressed — that truth is no defense — and on the foreign employee's lack of a Korean lawyer to say otherwise. The response letter that ends most of them is the one that names Article 310 and mentions payroll. The mistake is the written apology; a teacher who apologizes to make it go away has converted a defended review into an admitted defamation, and paid for the privilege.

Send us the letter and the review and we can tell you which sentences are defended and draft the response — by text consultation or at +82-2-522-3959.

— MEGA X Law Firm Korea, Civil Litigation Team