South Korean Parliament Moves to File Perjury Complaint Against Coupang Korea Chief
Updated (3 articles)
Parliament Decides to Pursue Perjury Complaint The National Assembly voted to file a formal complaint against Harold Rogers, interim chief of Coupang’s Korean unit, after his testimony at a plenary hearing [1][2]. Rogers swore an oath while describing an internal investigation he said was directed by the National Intelligence Service (NIS) [1][2]. The government confirmed the data breach exposed personal information of roughly 33 million South Korean customers, about two‑thirds of the population [1][2].
Rogers’ Testimony Claims NIS Directed Internal Probe Rogers asserted that the NIS ordered Coupang to conduct an internal probe and instructed the company to contact the individual who leaked the data [1]. He also said the agency guided the company’s response to the breach [1]. The NIS publicly refuted these claims, stating it never gave any instruction, order, or approval beyond a routine request for information [2][1].
Compensation Plan Unveiled Amid Consumer Criticism Following founder Kim Bom‑suk’s public apology, Coupang announced a compensation scheme for affected users [1][2]. Consumer‑rights groups denounced the plan as a marketing tactic aimed at boosting purchases and renewals rather than genuine remediation [1][2]. The controversy highlights tension between the company’s remediation efforts and public expectations for accountability.
NIS Calls Rogers’ Statements Undermining Trust The intelligence agency warned that Rogers’ allegations damage confidence in state institutions and urged the Assembly to pursue the perjury complaint [2]. NIS emphasized it has no authority to sanction the executive but stressed the seriousness of false statements [2]. The agency’s rebuke frames the dispute as a challenge to governmental credibility [2].
Sources (2 articles)
-
[1]
Yonhap: National Assembly moves to file complaint against Coupang Korea chief over alleged perjury: reports Parliament’s decision to charge Rogers, his oath, NIS denial, the 33 million‑customer breach, compensation plan, and consumer‑group criticism
-
[2]
Yonhap: NIS seeks Assembly complaint against Coupang chief over alleged perjury: details NIS’s request for a complaint, denial of directing the probe, warning about trust erosion, and reiteration of the breach’s scale
Timeline
Dec 18, 2025 – The government creates a pan‑government task force, comprising the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Personal Information Protection Commission and police, to investigate the Coupang data breach that exposed the personal data of 33 million South Koreans – roughly two‑thirds of the nation’s population. Lawmakers debate sanctions, including a possible suspension of Coupang’s operations, and discuss reforms to curb the firm’s retail dominance. Coupang chair Bom Kim skips the National Assembly hearing, while interim CEO Harold Rogers appears and admits his only Korean word is “mother‑in‑law,” underscoring communication challenges during the probe[3].
Dec 30, 2025 – The National Intelligence Service publicly rejects Rogers’s claim that the agency ordered Coupang’s internal probe and instructs the National Assembly to file a perjury complaint against him, warning that his statements “undermine trust in a state institution.” The NIS clarifies it issued only information‑requesting queries, not directives, and never told Coupang to contact the leaker. Rogers testifies before the Assembly, reiterating his earlier allegations, while the government reaffirms the breach’s scale and consumer groups criticize Coupang’s compensation plan as a marketing ploy[2].
Dec 31, 2025 – The National Assembly moves to file a formal complaint against Harold Rogers for alleged perjury, and Rogers takes an oath during a plenary session as the hearing continues. Coupang unveils a compensation scheme after founder Kim Bom‑suk delivers his first public apology, but consumer‑rights groups denounce the offer as a tactic to boost purchases and renewals. The NIS again denies any directive role in the leak investigation and urges accountability, highlighting the political sensitivity of the incident that has shaken public confidence in both the e‑commerce giant and state oversight mechanisms[1].