South Korea has experienced rapid growth in climate litigation in recent years. Alongside cases against the government and major emitters, a growing number of lawsuits and regulatory complaints target financial institutions whose decisions shape the pace of the energy transition. These cases employ a range of legal tools, from fiduciary duty claims to claims based on consumer protection and financial regulation, to challenge continued support for fossil fuels. This blog focuses on three recent cases that illustrate how these sorts of cases are being used to test the responsibilities of financial actors in the energy transition. Although all three were ultimately unsuccessful, they may nonetheless signal a shift in thinking about the role of financial actors in the energy transition and open the door to new actions in the future.
Civil Litigation Targeting Pension Fund Divestment
Korea’s National Pension Service (NPS), one of the world’s largest public pension funds, with approximately USD 1.3 trillion in public assets in 2025, announced in 2021 that it would phase out coal investments. By early 2024, the pledge had not been implemented, and the fund continued financing coal-heavy companies such as Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).
On February 22, 2024, 35 pension beneficiaries filed Kim Min et al. v. Kim Tae-Hyun et al. against three NPS executives, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty for failing to implement a coal phase-out policy. The plaintiffs argued that continued coal investments exposed the fund to financial risks and contributed to environmental harms affecting their health and well-being and sought KRW 20.5 million in damages.
In December 2024, amid ongoing litigation, NPS adopted a policy under which it would no longer invest in companies deriving more than 50% of their revenue from coal. On July 22, 2025, a group of 300 South Korean citizens, including members of the National Pension Service Climate Action Coalition, filed a public-interest audit petition with Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection, challenging the strategy’s transparency and sufficiency.
On June 20, 2025, the Seoul Central District Court dismissed the original lawsuit filed in February 2024, concluding that no enforceable legal duty required immediate fossil fuel divestment and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated direct damages. Nevertheless, the decision contained an important caveat. The court indicated that liability could arise if investment decisions effectively nullified the coal phase-out declaration, violated the National Pension Fund Management Guidelines, and disregarded foreseeable fund losses. Although the plaintiffs did not meet that threshold, the court’s reasoning may provide a basis for future accountability.
Consumer Protection and Insurance Liability Exclusions
Insurance companies occupy a unique position in the climate crisis: their investment and underwriting decisions can contribute to climate risk, even as they bear increasing losses from climate-related disasters. Yet standard policy terms do not reflect this structural tension.
Standard automobile insurance policies commonly exclude liability for damages linked to so-called “acts of God,” including climate-related disasters such as typhoons, floods, and wildfires. To obtain coverage for such events, policyholders generally must purchase additional riders. By design, this structure shifts climate-related losses from insurers to individual consumers, but this shift is incomplete. Where riders are sold, insurers still pay out when covered disasters strike, and those payouts continue to grow as climate-related disasters intensify, a trend to which insurers’ continued fossil fuel investments contribute. The costs insurers push onto consumers thus return to them as claims. A structure that relies on shifting a risk insurers themselves help create is not sustainable and may not survive legal scrutiny.
On April 29, 2025, Consumers Korea, a consumer group, filed an administrative complaint with the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) against South Korea’s five major auto insurers. The complaint argued that the insurers’ exclusion of liability for climate-related disasters effectively shifts climate-related risks onto consumers and therefore violates the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, which provides that contractual terms that unjustifiably limit indemnification or shift business risks to consumers are null and void.
The KFTC ultimately declined to formally review the complaint, finding that the materials submitted were insufficient to determine the terms’ legality. Nonetheless, the case sparked broader public discussion about whether existing insurance structures adequately reflect the growing risks associated with climate change and whether insurers should assume a greater share of those risks. For example, a seminar held at the National Assembly brought together relevant stakeholders, including insurers and policymakers, to discuss insurers’ accountability for exacerbating climate risks. Since the filing and the ensuing debate, insurers have been reducing their financed emissions by selling coal-related assets from their portfolios.
Regulatory Oversight of Credit Rating Methodologies
A third recent case highlights the role of credit rating agencies in shaping capital flows toward fossil fuel projects. Samcheok Blue Power operates South Korea’s most recently built coal-fired power plant. The facility has faced operational constraints, including utilization below 20% because of delays in transmission infrastructure. Coal-fired power plants face an increasingly uncertain future under South Korea’s planned coal phase-out. At the COP30 climate summit in November 2025, South Korea joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) and announced that it will phase out 40 of its 61 coal-fired power plants by 2040. Despite these structural and financial risks, the company’s bonds received A+ (Stable) ratings. Institutional investors, however, largely avoided the bonds because of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) concerns about coal power generation, despite their high coupon rates. This left retail investors as the primary holders.
In January 2026, Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC) filed a complaint with the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), alleging that, in giving Samcheok an A+ rating, the FSS violated the Capital Markets and Financial Investment Services Act. Specifically, the complaint argued that the agencies failed to apply their own rating methodologies consistently. The complainant also argued that the agencies understated policy and business risks associated with coal assets by assigning AA-level scores to policy and business risk factors while assessing financial risk in the BBB range. If the ratings materially misrepresented climate-related financial risks, they could mislead retail investors and delay the financial reckoning for coal-dependent assets—effectively shifting climate risks onto the public.
Although the FSS ultimately found no violation of the Capital Markets Act or its implementing regulations, the complaint illustrates that climate-related financial scrutiny may extend beyond companies that finance or operate fossil fuel assets. Market gatekeepers such as credit rating agencies may also be subject to legal challenge.
Conclusion
Taken together, these cases demonstrate how climate litigation in South Korea is expanding beyond claims against governments and rights-based litigation. Plaintiffs and advocacy groups are increasingly using legal tools—ranging from fiduciary duty claims to claims based on consumer protection law and financial regulation—to test the responsibilities of financial institutions in the climate transition.
While courts and regulators have so far taken cautious approaches, each case has advanced the debate about the role of capital-market actors in addressing climate risk. The NPS ruling articulated a conditional threshold that could ground future liability. The KFTC complaint sparked broader public debate about the role of insurance companies in the climate crisis—both as institutions that finance emissions through their investments and as entities whose policy structures determine who bears the cost of climate-driven disasters. Similarly, although the FSS dismissed the credit-rating complaint, the filing prompted engagement with regulators with limited prior exposure to climate-related financial risk and drew legislative attention that outlasted the formal outcome.
Across all three cases, a common theme emerges: the argument is no longer simply that fossil fuels cause environmental harm or violate fundamental rights, but that continued financial support for them may create legal liability for beneficiaries or consumers, or breach rules protecting the integrity of capital markets. This reframing is significant. It expands climate accountability from environmental policy into the core of financial and commercial law. South Korea’s experience demonstrates how legal intervention can be used not only to test climate-related commitments but also to reshape financial norms and expectations. As climate risks intensify, financial institutions’ accountability will remain a critical frontier for climate action.
Gwanhaeng Lee
Gwanhaeng Lee is foreign legal counsel at Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC), where he focuses on climate finance and strategic climate litigation aimed at accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy.
